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 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 229   Go Down

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 785655 Views
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #540 on: February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM »
 Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.   
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 #541 on: February 18, 2017, 07:28:57 PM »
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.

Controlled demolition, caused the collapse of building 7 at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Hi Papa  :-* :-*
I had a feeling.
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 #542 on: February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.

Controlled demolition, caused the collapse of building 7 at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Hi Papa  :-* :-*
I had a feeling.

Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

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 #543 on: February 18, 2017, 07:36:28 PM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.

Controlled demolition, caused the collapse of building 7 at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Hi Papa  :-* :-*
I had a feeling.

Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

That's been obvious from page one ;D ;D ;D also I am learnding heapz from this thread.
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 #544 on: February 18, 2017, 07:38:23 PM »
Now...Back to facts...No theories..

Let's discuss why the collapse could not happen as stated in the official report.

I would like these facts debunked please...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

Let's stick in reality.....This is where I like to be...

So, planes hitting a building, this is why they wouldn't fall....Simple facts...No thrills...Simple structural engineering...

Please....Someone debunk these with facts, no one has yet...

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.


If someone can, I will present 5 more facts to be debunked....If y'all can't, then it's done..


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



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

Please people...Open your minds. Who perpetrated this is using a combo of y'all's ignorance in structural design and dynamics and fear of marching against mainstream to control you.

But ignoring this...Please, someone debunk these facts with clear concise answers please

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
As for sound of the demos....There were 1000s of people including first responders that heard explosions....You can hear them on video evidence as well.

Here
One of the world's most expensive structural fuck ups (bedrock stacking fuck up)


This is an old school demo, using close to a 1000 charges. Dead silence, not a bustling city area, no windows nor sound deadening completely open. The demo is pretty quiet huh??

(Most demos they remove windows and sound deadening material fyi, it is never a fully intact building ::) )

Now, let's put charges that were designed to be quiet and fool people, in a fully intact building windows and all, in a bustling city with chaos panic sirens etc etc etc AND people still heard explosions lol.....

Let's not get distracted on the hypothetical, this is a typical tactic....Let's stay on known facts


I would also like talk about why inputs of the models used will never be released (they said it, not an assumption)...I can make models reflect anything, the beauty of not existing in reality.

Also why the people of the commission itself said the report was a conspiracy and a lie

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:15:03 PM
Though I will leave you with a few of these

 “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue"

"White house obstructed our investigation"

Co chair of commission report Lee Hamilton

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

Commissioner Bob Kerry

“It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

Max cleland before he resigned from the commission...

This is from the report you idolize... I have plenty more quotes, but know it won't matter to someone like you. Just figured i would let those you idolize argue for me.
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 #545 on: February 18, 2017, 07:41:16 PM »


Hey Papa Rayzor.

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 #546 on: February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings 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.
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #547 on: February 18, 2017, 07:54:01 PM »
Hi Papa.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 18, 2017, 12:11:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 18, 2017, 01:07:02 PM
the Newcastle was an employee's

So you allow your employees to drink at work & balance half-full beer bottles on their machinery?

Really?

Cool story sister...

Whatever; you are female & live in Italy; I have all the details.

You also run this mad disinfo-forum:

https://www.mgtowhq.com/

You are so far beyond mental that you have entered some kind of parallel universe of total disinfo-psychosis & I simply do not know how to interact with you any more...

Good thing all I have to do is point at you & laugh then, eh?

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 #548 on: February 18, 2017, 07:56:40 PM »
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.
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 #549 on: February 18, 2017, 08:08:53 PM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:15:03 PM

Though I will leave you with a few of these

 “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue"

"White house obstructed our investigation"

Co chair of commission report Lee Hamilton

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

Commissioner Bob Kerry

“It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

Max cleland before he resigned from the commission...

This is from the report you idolize... I have plenty more quotes, but know it won't matter to someone like you. Just figured i would let those you idolize argue for me.

I think they were spot on with their comments about certain aspects of the 911 commission,  the Bush White House covered up  information that the CIA had and never acted on,  they  stonewalled the commission's access to restricted intelligence reports.

The fact that no-one connected the dots,  is a scandal of epic proportions,  the intelligence community failed.   The FBI refused to allow the commission access to key witnesses and on it goes.

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 #550 on: February 18, 2017, 08:13:33 PM »
Facts, address the physics.

Quote
Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.

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 #551 on: February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.  WTC2 was hit by another hijacked 767 UA175.
2. Both impacts caused significant structural damage and started fires.
3. The collapse initiation point is both cases was the fire damaged area hit by the aircraft.
4. The type of collapse was progressive collapse. 
5. The collapse was slower than free fall. 

If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.




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 #552 on: February 18, 2017, 08:49:00 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Thanks mate.

The thread is right here, for anyone who wants to read and consider. We have fought bravely but unfortunately Rayzor.

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.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.

Wait, what?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 08:54:34 PM 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.
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #553 on: February 18, 2017, 09:09:58 PM »
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.  WTC2 was hit by another hijacked 767 UA175.
2. Both impacts caused significant structural damage and started fires.
3. The collapse initiation point is both cases was the fire damaged area hit by the aircraft.
4. The type of collapse was progressive collapse. 
5. The collapse was slower than free fall. 

If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 08:49:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.

Wait, what?

The facts I stated, which you except are true mean everything and surely do matter.

The facts I have already presented, and all the facts I have not presented yet show that the tower could not have had a progressive collapse the way the commission report says..Not to mention building 7 that was not struck.

So if there is an entire report that is a lie...What are they covering up...Who are the real perpetrators?
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 #554 on: February 18, 2017, 09:19:55 PM »
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 09:09:58 PM

The facts I stated, which you except are true mean everything and surely do matter.

The facts I have already presented, and all the facts I have not presented yet show that the tower could not have had a progressive collapse the way the commission report says..Not to mention building 7 that was not struck.

So if there is an entire report that is a lie...What are they covering up...Who are the real perpetrators?

I'm sure you meant accept,  not except.

So what are the facts not yet presented which you claim prove the tower could not have had a progressive collapse?

If you want to claim the entire report is a lie,  you need evidence,  so far you've shown nothing.   I agree that there was probably a cover up about what the intelligence agencies actually knew beforehand,  but that can be treated as a separate issue.   We are discussing the causes and mechanism of the collapse,  this is engineering and physics,   not spooks and politics. 

Just a point of protocol  disputeone,  I have you on ignore,  could someone please quote him if he says anything of relevance.


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

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #555 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.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #556 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.
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 #557 on: February 18, 2017, 09:45:51 PM »
Quote from: Intikam on February 18, 2017, 09:19:55 PM
Just a point of protocol  disputeone,  I have you on ignore,  could someone please quote him if he says anything of relevance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:33:41 AM
Quote from: Intikam on February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM
So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM

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

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

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

You are exactly right in saying, any unsupported mass will fall at exactly 1G, however, there's this thing called Terminal velocity which means anything moving through a medium will eventually be slowed down by the medium.

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

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

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

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

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

I see why you were scared to debate him.

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

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

I am being condescending now, I admit it, you lost your chance on page two tbh.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 01:44:38 AM
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

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

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

Quote from: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

*In honor of one of the greatest shitposters of our time, even if we hate each other ;D.

Edit.


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 #558 on: February 18, 2017, 09:53:19 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 06:35:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 05:28:23 AM
Quote from: NIST
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I don't think my views are that detached from reality.

My tone with Rayzor was due to his dishonesty.



I have been explicitly clear that I believe the official story doesn't address the 2.25 second free-fall, I have posted multiple experiments and logical points to explain this.

The only possible explanation for a collapse of gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

This is my position.

Edit, sauce.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Rama Set, what do you think of this?

Rayzor, use your words man.

My explanations why the NIST WTC7 report is false are at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm .

Fact remains that no structure or building can ever globally collapse due to local failure of one element - a pillar - or connection - beams/girders - inside the structure (e.g. due to thermal expansion/fire).

It is easy to show! Just remove the critical member or connection in any FEM/beam model of the structure! There is no collapse! Only adjacent structural members are higher stressed. Redundancy! Only terrorists think buildings collapse when one member fails.

There exists in structural damage analysis theory no phenomenon as 'classic progressive collapse'! It is just a stupid invention by non-regulatory, terrorist agency like NIST, as follows:

    "Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage (? - failure!) from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse (? - failure!) of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse."

It is supposed to have happened for the first and only time in History on 911. But it is just a Great Deception!

Hope you find my descriptions interesting!
Logged
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #559 on: February 18, 2017, 09:55:56 PM »
Thanks Heiwa, keep it on topic tho please? That post was good.
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 #560 on: February 18, 2017, 10:04:17 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:55:56 PM
Thanks Heiwa, keep it on topic tho please? That post was good.

You have to read all of it including:

    The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush's cabinet.

Imagine that a US vice president and a US secretary of War had rented 75% of a building that suddenly just ... collapsed ... soon after they joined the government.

Logged
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #561 on: February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM »
I have, belive it or not, studied your information on 9/11 extensively.

I think, myself and BHS could help you make a more factual and relevant page on it, however, I agree with you in this issue.

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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 10:15:45 PM 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.
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #562 on: February 18, 2017, 10:12:06 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.

Well it does actually. As one of the reasons for WTC collapse listed from the commission was concrete releasing from boiling remaining water of the concrete.

(Edit... Height has no relevance, buildings are also built to scale. Base/thickness of material/how many etc etc etc etc...You wouldn't have that buildings base and the WTC upper section..THAT would equal a collapse without a fire or plane)

Just for you markjo





The last one burned for almost 48 hours fyi.


Though me posting up pictures is just for effect, I really dont need to...Since no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire....Even the most recent 7 in the last 5 years that were all worse than building 7, 1 or 2.

I just post stuff for people who aren't well versed can see things in comparison for effect.

(Oh and almost all the buildings where fires or even plane impacts happened were repaired and still in use)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 10:24:24 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Logged
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #563 on: February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM »
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings? 
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

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

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #564 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?
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 #565 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.
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 #566 on: February 18, 2017, 10:37:21 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
I have, belive it or not, studied your information on 9/11 extensively.

I think, myself and BHS could help you make a more factual and relevant page on it, however, I agree with you in this issue.

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.

Thanks! Re the WTC1/2 collisions there should be:

1. Plenty noise >150 dB when the plane contacts the tower. No BANG heard/recorded on the videos.

2. Also there should be vertical deflection of the tower due to contact - the roof should displace a couple of meters sideways (the floor below less) - and it should swing forward/aft for while. No deflections seen on the videos.

3. Plenty debris due to contact should bounce back. No debris seen on any videos.

No, the planes just disappear silently into the towers and after a while there are FIREBALLS. They really look CGI to me. Actually, everything is CGI incl. the collapses. What a show.
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #567 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?
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

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

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #568 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.
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 #569 on: February 18, 2017, 10:41:11 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.

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.
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.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 229   Go Up
« previous next »