Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 229   Go Down

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 784954 Views
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #570 on: February 18, 2017, 10:51:31 PM »
It was claimed the plane passed through the buildings?

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #571 on: February 18, 2017, 10:57:44 PM »
Yes, however, not by us.





Come on man.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #572 on: February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #573 on: February 18, 2017, 11:08:37 PM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Which ones?

So are you asking questions for no reason? Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

Were you going somewhere with this?
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #574 on: February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM »
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
And now Heiwa is back claiming not one single person saw anything that day and no one has ever noticed.

No, I just claim that weak tops of structures (with plenty members of all kind) do not crush strong bottoms of same structure keeping the top in place or that removing one member of a structure produces a progressive collapse of same structure, i.e. all members/connections suddenly fail.

To design a structure (ship, skyscraper) you have to do an intact structural analysis of all parts of the structure and establish the stresses and (elastic) deformations of the members, etc, etc. I have done 100's.

If a structure fails, you should also do a damage structural analysis to establish why a member failed and the path of consequent failures (if the latter occur). I have actually done a few to establish WHY damage occurred to a structure. Interesting stuff.

Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale to keep GWB & Co. happy.

 
Logged
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #575 on: February 18, 2017, 11:23:06 PM »
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:38:32 PM
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?

I am sorry, I didn't see this.

Chromium is never used in high amounts in any structural steel, especially in a high rise. It can provide a bit more fire resistance and rigidity...But that is the issue... Rigidity, it is too much for a building that requires flex but not breaking. Too much CR...And you will start to have fractures or even failures  very quickly.

That is why any high rise in the structural steel uses mainly nickel, copper or a combo of both for the anti corrosive.

But for amounts Incase you didn't see this

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:08:37 PM
Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

I never want to be accused of ignoring questions...
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 11:25:01 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #576 on: February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM »
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #577 on: February 18, 2017, 11:38:40 PM »
We're actually really keen to have a real in depth honest debate, if people haven't noticed yet.

Edit.

Damnit I hate it when Heiwa speaks undeniable facts. Just kidding Heiwa you've raised some good points.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #578 on: February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM »
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM

If a structure fails, you should also do a damage structural analysis to establish why a member failed and the path of consequent failures (if the latter occur). I have actually done a few to establish WHY damage occurred to a structure.

A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.
Logged
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #579 on: February 19, 2017, 12:11:00 AM »
Onebigmonkey.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #580 on: February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM »
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #581 on: February 19, 2017, 12:28:29 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Geez, I dunno man.

What do you guys think?

Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #582 on: February 19, 2017, 12:57:10 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Could it be because you think that  "Why did the towers collapse?"   Is a trick question.

Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #583 on: February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #584 on: February 19, 2017, 01:03:51 AM »
Obvious shillary reeks of obvious shillary.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #585 on: February 19, 2017, 01:07:15 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

100% wrong,  if you can't read, I'd excuse your ignorance,  but, since you seem to read a t least a little,  to tell a bald faced lie like that,  just makes you look like a conspiracy nutter.   

Oh wait,   you are.

I'd post a link to the NIST structural analysis,  but instead maybe I should post a link to Heiwa's web site?


Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #586 on: February 19, 2017, 01:08:41 AM »
Realistically no one is getting paid by anyone to post on this site.  The closest thing to that sort of thing is the occasional spammer. This site shuts those down pretty quick though.

It makes for good joke fodder though. And it's a great fallback retort when another poster isn't seeing things your way.

Edit: *shut's*  ::) ::) ::)
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 01:34:44 AM by Boots »
Logged
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #587 on: February 19, 2017, 01:12:33 AM »
Perhaps. I just don't understand why he hasn't addressed a point yet.

I would also point out the unlikelyhood of their being opinion control on the flat earth society. 4chan and Reddit however is perhaps a different story.

Also still waiting for anyone to take this on.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

I'm sorry if I'm being rude or unfair, however the people that know me would have noticed that I always lash out at people who I think are being dishonest.

Please ask Heiwa he will tell you directly.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #588 on: February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM »
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 12:57:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Could it be because you think that  "Why did the towers collapse?"   Is a trick question.



This is not for you troll...This is for anybody actually reading for information..I already stated to you rayzor why I don't want to state the why, and only the why not.

Any why, is educated theory....Yet, showing the official story is a fabrication with using facts that are not theories.

So by disproving the official story with facts that require no theoretical thinking, we know the true story has not been told. So the true motivation, cause of the collapse and perpetrators have not been discovered.

Just a bit of trolling by rayzor..No worries.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

Just a bit more of trolling by rayzor....Everyone stay calm...

This little bit here, rayzor is trying to inject everything heiwa believes into this tiny statement, when it is obvious I was only agreeing with what he said about their odd means of damage analysis. It was not standard protocol.


Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:03:51 AM
Obvious shillary reeks of obvious shillary.
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #589 on: February 19, 2017, 01:15:53 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #590 on: February 19, 2017, 01:16:27 AM »
Boots is a good guy, I understand how it may appear that we are being dicks.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #591 on: February 19, 2017, 01:19:26 AM »
Quote from: Boots on February 19, 2017, 01:08:41 AM
Realistically no one is getting paid by anyone to post on this site.  The closest thing to that sort of thing is the occasional spammer. This site shut's those down pretty quick though.

It makes for good joke fodder though. And it's a great fallback retort when another poster isn't seeing things your way.

Boots....I would have 100 percent agreed with you until a few days ago to be 100 percent honest. I would have said almost identical of what you just said actually.

Someone is converting me on this matter by actions though...May sound crazy, but I could present you with a strong case of circumstantial evidence. Could be wrong, but could also be right
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #592 on: February 19, 2017, 01:20:25 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

Quote from: Rayzor
I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Just a bit more of trolling by rayzor....Everyone stay calm...
This little bit here, rayzor is trying to inject everything heiwa believes into this tiny statement, when it is obvious I was only agreeing with what he said about their odd means of damage analysis. It was not standard protocol.

Ok, Heiwa stated that  "NIST has not done any structural analysises at all."    and you agreed 100% 

I accept that you might not agree with their structural analysis,  although that's not entirely clear,  since you refuse to say,  but you can't just post lies saying they didn't do any analysis. 

« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 01:23:08 AM by Rayzor »
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #593 on: February 19, 2017, 01:26:40 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.

Another free prediction.

I'm starting to think I willed this.

Edit.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:15:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

This is just carnage.



Consider the steel tube, evidence.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 01:32:46 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #594 on: February 19, 2017, 01:33:52 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..



However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...



Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.

These aren't facts, unless you have recreated this in a scale model or done extensive calculations on it. If it is not too much problem, I'd like to see how you arrived at these conclusions. As far as I am concerned, this is just a hypothessis. But you didn't want to discuss hypothesis, did you?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)


This is how buildings fall when they aren't demoed

Neither of them were the twin towers, neither of them were under the same circumstances as the twin towers, that's facts. Implying that this is true for all buildings is your hypothesis, not a fact. Two pictures isn't enough evidence to even make it a theory.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.



This here proves that a building close to free fall hits solid ground can land without damage...It doesn't even flinch. It doesn't vaporize itself
Can, yes. But always? Should it have happened at WTC? Do you have facts about WTC and not facts about other stuff that we then have to interpret the results of to create a hypothetical model of how the WTC collapses happened? You sure you don't want to discuss hypothesis or theories?
Logged
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #595 on: February 19, 2017, 01:36:10 AM »
He has done computer models, that was stated on page one.
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #596 on: February 19, 2017, 01:40:53 AM »
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:20:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

Quote from: Rayzor
I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Just a bit more of trolling by rayzor....Everyone stay calm...
This little bit here, rayzor is trying to inject everything heiwa believes into this tiny statement, when it is obvious I was only agreeing with what he said about their odd means of damage analysis. It was not standard protocol.

Ok, Heiwa stated that  "NIST has not done any structural analysises at all."    and you agreed 100% 

I accept that you might not agree with their structural analysis,  although that's not entirely clear,  since you refuse to say,  but you can't just post lies saying they didn't do any analysis.

Well, technically they did not do a structural analysis the way heiwa spoke of, or like they would have done in usual circumstance. This is not protocol in a situation like this. Especially in the largest attack against us since Pearl harbor.

Instead they lock the area down and ship everything over seas to be destroyed...All the evidence was gone before the "investigation" was started. They did an "analysis" with variables and inputs no one will ever know. They could have used inputs where the core was made of Play-Doh....We will never know. I bet Play-Doh would collapse progressively.
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #597 on: February 19, 2017, 01:44:37 AM »
Play dough wouldn't collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds even if a plane actually hit a scale play dough model of wtc7, no chance.

Edit would probably end up a big blob before you could build it anywhere near that size, but you get the point.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 01:46:31 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #598 on: February 19, 2017, 01:46:12 AM »
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.
Logged
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #599 on: February 19, 2017, 01:46:35 AM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:15:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Why don't you ask everyone "How a plane can pass through a building without leaving a mark?"   Claiming that you have video evidence of this exact scenario,  but can't seem to find it?

Why don't you tell everyone about your 10 years worth of unpublished research on 911,  and your personal discovery of nano-thermite in the dust?   

You seem to be denying that you are a "Quadruple No Planer"  and I don't blame you,  that wing of the asylum is not a nice neighbourhood.

Here's what you said when banging  on about planes not leaving a mark

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.

No planes at all eh?

You never saw the evidence of hundreds of pictures of aircraft debris?   Or was that faked as well?
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 229   Go Up
« previous next »