The Flat Earth Society

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

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

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

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

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

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

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

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

But you asked for it.

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

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

But you asked for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though I must question ....

My major was maths and physics,  Also I happen to like calculus.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck.

Edit typos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck.

Edit typos

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

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

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

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

Now....

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

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

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

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck.

Edit typos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh snap.

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

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

BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE!

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where do you want to start?

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

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

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

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

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

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

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit.

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

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

Edit.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 03:00:19 AM
Where do you want to start?

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

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A third rate magic show is more convincing.

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

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

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

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

I lost where I was....


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

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

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

Cause thermodynamics, mostly.

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

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

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

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

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

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A third rate magic show is more convincing.

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

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

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

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

I lost where I was....


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

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

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

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

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pick one.

For your questions.

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

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

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

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pick one.

For your questions.

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

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

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

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

This.

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

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

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

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

Umm,  so you have evidence for this theory? 

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

 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pick one.

For your questions.

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

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

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

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

This.

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

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

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

Now...

Back to your game...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wasting our time.

Edit.

In that video.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:25:49 AM
Let's take it one step at a time. 

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

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

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

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

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

Pick one.

For your questions.

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

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

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

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

This.

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

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

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

Now...

Back to your game...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wasting our time.

Edit.

In that video.

Computed using a state of the art simulation code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



What the hell is this?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smdh...


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

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

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

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

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

Priceless.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go get some sleep,  I can wait.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Impact physics are clearly not your strong suit.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact physics are clearly not your strong suit.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FWIW GSM has just been switched off in Australia.

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

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

There is nothing to add currently...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing to add currently...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing to add currently...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:16:08 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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


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


This is a waste of my time..

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


This is a waste of my time..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 09:06:30 AM

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


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

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

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


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

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

I'm moving it!

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

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

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

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

Even the OS admits there was a conspiracy.

The OS just identifies the wrong people as the conspirators.

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

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

NIST report on WTC 7 admits free fall.

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

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

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


This is a waste of my time..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

You came out of nowhere...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Priceless.

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

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

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

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

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

Pick one.

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

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

Occams Razor anyone?

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

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

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

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

Pick one.

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

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

Occams Razor anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pick one.

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

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

Occams Razor anyone?

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

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

100x this.

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

I can respect, or at least understand that also.

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

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

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

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

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

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

So that's your best argument for a conspiracy?     I expected better.

Have you got any real evidence?


So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

Shall I continue?

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

Edit.

Called it first reply.

Fall acceleration of building 7.

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

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:19:49 PM

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

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

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

Pick one.

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

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

Occams Razor anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm done here, toodle pip.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now you know the truth.

I don't know how to take that except.

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

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

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

Bravo for that. Enjoy the rest of this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 07:15:22 PM

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

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

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

Pick one.

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

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

Occams Razor anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly what I said would happen in an actual collision


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Now stop lying, it's pathetic.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 07:28:28 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

This isn't even quality bantz.



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

We should just let rayzor have his fake victory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

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

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


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

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

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

Not a chance.

And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.

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


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

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

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

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

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

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

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


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

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

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

Not a chance.

And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
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.

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

From the NIST report  6.14.4

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


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

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

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:13:53 AM
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.

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

Because I think for myself and make my own decisions.

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

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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM
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  --- Edit: correction,  only on the surface of the earth, and ignoring denspressure. :)

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

Because I think for myself and make my own decisions.

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

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

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

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 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=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.

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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:42:05 AM
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.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

As for your NIST quote...

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

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

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

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


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.

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

Unless you have a wand..

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

From the NIST report  6.14.4

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


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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this not seem suspect to you?

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

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

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

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

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

What question was that?

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

As for your NIST quote...

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Does this not seem suspect to you?

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

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

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


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

Yes, and when you raised it, if you recall,  I agreed with your correction,  but the main point was the majority of calls was from verizon air phones,  only 2 from cell phones.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:48:42 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.

I've never dodged,  I gave you the version I think is the truth.  You don't like it,  prove me wrong.

So what's your theory?   I keep asking and you keep ducking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:05:08 AM
Controlled demolition is the only way building 7 could have fallen at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Myself and Babyhighspeed have been implicitly clear on what we think is factual and what we think is speculation.

You are attempting to make strawmen and not engage the elephant in the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 02:15:58 AM
...You still have never even addressed my very first question lol. You just keep posting things for other people or NIST...But since you are trying to play nice, I will as well, just don't expect detailed answers until you start using your own words.

What question was that?

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

As for your NIST quote...

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Does this not seem suspect to you?

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

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

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

My first question...Was in direct response to what you said.."I saw a plane hit the tower, so that is what brought it down"

So I asked, "if that is the case, tell me how a plane can fly inside a tower without making a mark on the building?" I then posted up a picture of evidence. I can post up a video too..

As for a mag fire...You suggested ignition of the aircraft aluminum...I stated no..They wouldn't IGNITE with anything we KNEW was in there. If it did, then we would have certainly seen it, it's unmistakable with the amount of magnesium and zinc present in that mixture. Why do you think NIST was so vague with what type aluminum it was? Trying to avoid that retort.


I have answered your question on the temps, many different times. In attempts to not repeat myself, I will just say, with the commercial liners only and fuel...Not hot enough. SOMETHING left out of the story was.

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

Yes, and when you raised it, if you recall,  I agreed with your correction,  but the main point was the majority of calls was from verizon air phones,  only 2 from cell phones.

So if we go with your number of two (which there were more)... Two impossible calls, there for two lies doesn't bug you? That isn't minor in my opinion...One lie leads to many, especially in something as big as this.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:16:08 AM
Controlled demolition is the only way building 7 could have fallen at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Myself and Babyhighspeed have been implicitly clear on what we think is factual and what we think is speculation.

You are attempting to make strawmen and not engage the elephant in the thread.

Controlled demolition doesn't match the facts.

Starting with  WTC7,   why wait 7 hours before the demolition?    Why detonate on the 13th floor?   The fires were most intense on the 13th floor, and thats where the collapse started.
If you wanted to demolish WTC7,  why wouldn't  you have placed charges on the lower floors.   

In the case of WTC1 and WTC2 the video evidence is clear that the collapse started at the floors where the planes impacted and the fires started,  does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My first question...Was in direct response to what you said.."I saw a plane hit the tower, so that is what brought it down"

So I asked, "if that is the case, tell me how a plane can fly inside a tower without making a mark on the building?" I then posted up a picture of evidence. I can post up a video too..

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?   Get your story straight.
Then when I repeated your assertion that it didn't leave a mark,  you accuse me of lying about what you said.   You can't have it both ways.   

A 175,000 kg anything travelling at 590 mph has enough kinetic energy to cause significant damage, do you claim otherwise?   



As for a mag fire...You suggested ignition of the aircraft aluminum...I stated no..They wouldn't IGNITE with anything we KNEW was in there. If it did, then we would have certainly seen it, it's unmistakable with the amount of magnesium and zinc present in that mixture. Why do you think NIST was so vague with what type aluminum it was? Trying to avoid that retort.

Show me where I said the aluminium ignited?   I said that the fires were hot enough to melt aluminium and that molten metal pouring out the side of the building was molten aluminium at high enough temperature to look red,  you can look up the black body radiation curve and correct for the emissivity of Aluminium if you like to checkl.

I have answered your question on the temps, many different times. In attempts to not repeat myself, I will just say, with the commercial liners only and fuel...Not hot enough. SOMETHING left out of the story was.

Not good enough,  considering this is central to supporting the demolition theory,  close to the fires it got up to 1000C and steel structure temperatures of 600-700C.  Add to that the glowing metal pouring out of the building, and the glowing steel girders recovered from the debris and your hypotheis doesn't stand up.

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

Yes, and when you raised it, if you recall,  I agreed with your correction,  but the main point was the majority of calls was from verizon air phones,  only 2 from cell phones.
So if we go with your number of two (which there were more)... Two impossible calls, there for two lies doesn't bug you? That isn't minor in my opinion...One lie leads to many, especially in something as big as this.

At some altitude and location it would have been possible to get a connection to a cell tower,   that's all that is required to dismiss the claim it was impossible. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:39:35 AM
Quote
does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Sorry Rayzor but you lowered the bar first.







Yes, it does.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:44:15 AM
Quote
does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Sorry Rayzor but you lowered the bar first.


So rather than address the questions I raised, you resort to irrelevant videos,   ask the company who did that demolition,  where did they place the charges?  I'm going to bet it wasn't up in the top half of the building.


 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:46:58 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.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 02:50:19 AM
You keep asking about controlled demo...If my company were hired to do a demo (which we aren't a company that does that, but would only require a few certs on top what we already have to do so) here is how I would do it.

I would use the fact the building was almost vacant and prep for months or a year the buildings in advance. (Remember, most foot traffic in the buildings was from Subway traffic below. Buildings only became 70 percent occupied months before the destruction with companies that just "appeared"..And some how many of those same companies helped with the clean up and removal of materials after the destruction...CCA public records).

I would wire shape charges in lower levels (1000s of reports of explosions) reversed directional on the I beams, standard in cuts on the outers.

Upper levels, I would run thermite in a horizontal v in staggered directions varying ever 4th floor. Capped with a small load c4 charge on each v converged tail.

I would use the planes/missles ECT as a diversionary tactic..No different than a magician. After letting that simmer for a bit, I would then drop the towers. Controlling from building 7, I would start the sequence...First hit the thermite for show and weakening..(reports of liquid metal 3 minutes before collapse.)..

Then timed upper c4 charges to blow out the cut Vs....Then hit the shape charges on the ground floors...Then the mid floors c4...And down she comes.

Rinse and repeat....

Then when all looks good, do the same with evidence/building 7 and hope no one asks why the hell that one fell (should have thought the last one through)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2djc76d.jpg)

Beauty of a cut...But thermite is very nasty burning and leaves a ton of slag..

It would be a work of art if it wasnt the essence of evil...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 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.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

.

Regardless of what you think you've "got" on BHS the fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?


Edit.

If you want speculation and not facts I could fill this thread with pages of the occult connections/coincidences alone.

Or I can talk about shpayze lazers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:57:16 AM
You keep asking about controlled demo...If my company were hired to do a demo (which we aren't a company that does that, but would only require a few certs on top what we already have to do so) here is how I would do it.

I would use the fact the building was almost vacant and prep for months or a year the buildings in advance. (Remember, most foot traffic in the buildings was from Subway traffic below. Buildings only became 70 percent occupied months before the destruction with companies that just "appeared"..And some how many of those same companies helped with the clean up and removal of materials after the destruction...CCA public records).

I would wire shape charges in lower levels (1000s of reports of explosions) reversed directional on the I beams, standard in cuts on the outers.

Upper levels, I would run thermite in a horizontal v in staggered directions varying ever 4th floor. Capped with a small load c4 charge on each v converged tail.

I would use the planes/missles ECT as a diversionary tactic..No different than a magician. After letting that simmer for a bit, I would then drop the towers. Controlling from building 7, I would start the sequence...First hit the thermite for show and weakening..(reports of liquid metal 3 minutes before collapse.)..

Then timed upper c4 charges to blow out the cut Vs....Then hit the shape charges on the ground floors...Then the mid floors c4...And down she comes.

Rinse and repeat....

Then when all looks good, do the same with evidence/building 7 and hope no one asks why the hell that one fell (should have thought the last one through)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2djc76d.jpg)

Beauty of a cut...But thermite is very nasty burning and leaves a ton of slag..

It would be a work of art if it wasnt the essence of evil...

Let's be a bit clearer,  you are saying that's how you would do it,  ok,  I get that,   but you aren't quite committing to saying you think that's how it was done? 

Let's cut to the chase,   what's your theory as to how it was done?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:00:01 AM
He's a lost cause man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 03:00:37 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.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

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

I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:03:23 AM
Regardless of what you think you've "got" on BHS the fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

No I'm not kidding on any of those points.   

How did the plane penetrating and exiting the building "violate the laws of physics"?   
How do you think the laws of thermodynamics were violated by the fires?

As far as free fall,  I've already covered that over and over,  go back and read my earlier answers.


If you want speculation and not facts I could fill this thread with pages of the occult connections/coincidences alone.

Or I can talk about shpayze lazers?

For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: StillFlat on February 15, 2017, 03:05:47 AM
I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:08:26 AM
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.

(https://s14.postimg.org/hgda277n5/2017_02_15_19_06_26_38116883.jpg)

Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Edit.

I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay

Rayzor is a trooper.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:11:31 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.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

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

I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.

Ok, let's be 100% clear on this,  you claim that the aircraft impacted the building and didn't leave a mark,  I want to be 100% sure, because last time I repeated what you said you falsely accused me of lying.

At what speed, altitude and location, do you think would it be impossible to make a CDMA call. Go ask your mate about CDMA before you get yourself in too deep,  I have a CDMA base station cell controller sitting on my workbench not 3 feet away from where I'm typing,  I'm planning on scavenging a few parts for an upcoming RF project.  It's pretty useless for anything else.  But I could fire it up and measure some times, If I had any CDMA handsets left.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:15:15 AM
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.

(https://s14.postimg.org/hgda277n5/2017_02_15_19_06_26_38116883.jpg)

Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Edit.

I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay

Rayzor is a trooper.

I'm curious,  what do you think a straw man argument actually is?    Show me an example in this thread?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 03:24:54 AM
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.

(https://s14.postimg.org/hgda277n5/2017_02_15_19_06_26_38116883.jpg)

Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Sad thing is, I have literally only said 2 percent of what I could on this....Haven't even made a dent...Just like the magic planes lol.


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.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

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

I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.

Ok, let's be 100% clear on this,  you claim that the aircraft impacted the building and didn't leave a mark,  I want to be 100% sure, because last time I repeated what you said you falsely accused me of lying.

At what speed, altitude and location, do you think would it be impossible to make a CDMA call. Go ask your mate about CDMA before you get yourself in too deep,  I have a CDMA base station cell controller sitting on my workbench not 3 feet away from where I'm typing,  I'm planning on scavenging a few parts for an upcoming RF project.  It's pretty useless for anything else.  But I could fire it up and measure some times, If I had any CDMA handsets left.


Well to be honest I thought you were talking about in real life...But yes..If you are talking about what we "saw" on television...Then yes...Didn't leave a mark..That is what we saw, I was just stating it.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Another amazing feat from a different "camera".


As for your CDMA , we are talking way more than a receiver rayzor. We need actual service. I don't need my buddy unless you just want to hear more technical terms. He helped me at multiple conferences, a VP at Ericsson...Came from Nortel(the company who built the actual trunk equipment in the trade centers, Actually survived the bombing years ago) before Ericsson bought them..we have build structures for their mobile services in areas with "fake trees" that hold the equipment...I am definitely not going to "get into anything"....

If you want to make a call...You have to be fully ported..The towers talk to each other, determine where to port you depending on your position. You must be authenticated etc etc etc...They do this "preemptively" otherwise your call would drop all the time...

Between altitude and speed...This would never happen, even if you struck gold and found service for a minute, you would never be allowed to place a call from not being authenticated (this was also before the 911 service lock outs we have now)....It would just continuously tower bounce....

Things are different now, but we are talking then..

Long story short...No captian...Ain't gonna happen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:26:56 AM
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Where do you want to start?

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

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A third rate magic show is more convincing.

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

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

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

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

I lost where I was....


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

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

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

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

Personally, I like the second definition more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:37:01 AM
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Personally, I like the second definition more.

In the context of a debate it's commonly the first definition that is used,  and as I suspected you didn't actually know that,
otherwise you would have given an example,  you seemed to imply that you thought a straw man was someone who grasped at straws.


Quote from: disputeone
Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Can't say I'm totally surprised.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:43:43 AM
You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

Well to be honest I thought you were talking about in real life...But yes..If you are talking about what we "saw" on television...Then yes...Didn't leave a mark..That is what we saw, I was just stating it.

I'll defer to you on the CDMA,  I don't agree that it was impossible,  but I see no way to resolve the issue.  Let's move on to bigger issues.

Let's go back to the video of the aircraft impacting the building,  can you go to the next few frames,  you seem to stop just before the plane hits and use that as proof they didn't leave a mark,  the video evidence I've seen contradicts your assertion,   I won't link to it here,  you can find plenty of examples on line.

So are you claiming all those videos are somehow doctored?   What about the live tv coverage?

What the hell,  you linked to videos so why not. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:45:29 AM
I've been here for quite a while, I have also posted on forums for quite some time. I know what a strawman argument is.

(https://s10.postimg.org/jkxd5wtdl/1485475822528m.jpg)

Quality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 03:48:00 AM
No I find the NIST report well researched and complete. It does not bother me the data inputs utilized for modeling outcomes was never released so the results can be verified.

FTFY, you disingenuous _ _ _ _.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 03:50:52 AM
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e2m8w0.jpg)

Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??

(http://i66.tinypic.com/kf056v.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:52:43 AM
I've been here for quite a while, I have also posted on forums for quite some time. I know what a strawman argument is.
Quality.

It would seem you don't otherwise you  could have given me an example.  I think you are well out of your depth and clutching  at straws
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:55:38 AM
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e2m8w0.jpg)

Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??

(http://i66.tinypic.com/kf056v.jpg)

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.

The plane was shredded by the impact,  did you learn nothing from the simulation?

If you want a serious argument,  then fine,  but stop with the road runner crap,  it makes you look like you aren't interested in the truth.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:21:02 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.

LOL

Thanks,  I appreciate that you haven't got a clue about the subject,  but please kick in with your valuable contributions whenever the drugs wear off enough that you can type.  Nice to see yet another who doesn't know what a straw man is,  you probably think it's something like a scarecrow.

PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 04:27:10 AM
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Personally, I like the second definition more.

In the context of a debate it's commonly the first definition that is used,  and as I suspected you didn't actually know that,
otherwise you would have given an example,  you seemed to imply that you thought a straw man was someone who grasped at straws.

It was a pun, you utter moron.

Thanks hoppy.

PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

Notice he is still grasping at straws.

Consider the bolded text of my reply and you can see it is a literal strawman argument. That wasn't the only one you tried to pull.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:28:54 AM
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e2m8w0.jpg)

Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??

(http://i66.tinypic.com/kf056v.jpg)

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.

The plane was shredded by the impact,  did you learn nothing from the simulation?

If you want a serious argument,  then fine,  but stop with the road runner crap,  it makes you look like you aren't interested in the truth.

And your blind acceptance of the NIST reports, despite the fact the data inputs used for modeling has not been released so the results can be replicated or falsified (i.e., SCIENTIFIC METHOD) is indicative of a total _ _ _ _ .

(http://i.imgur.com/Syqga.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:30:58 AM
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:36:02 AM
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.

Keep up the good work totallackey,  you are making a compelling case reinforcing my view of 911 conspiracy theories. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 04:39:50 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:48:25 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.

No he posted a selfie and mumbled something about NIST model inputs.

I think he was looking for this http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013

But I doubt he would know what to do with it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:48:52 AM
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.
Keep up the good work totallackey,  you are making a compelling case reinforcing my view of 911 conspiracy theories.

And you keep up the party line and OS mantra!

It is true nothing will ever be effectively done about changing the actual guard or catching the real criminals in this case.

The spooks from Texas are the real killers and they have made everyone a lot of money and that is all anyone really cares about in the end.

Comfort while alive here on Earth.

I remain convinced a vast majority of people who watched the buildings fall that day knew exactly what they were watching: a controlled demolition in progress.

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:54:26 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.

No he posted a selfie and mumbled something about NIST model inputs.

I think he was looking for this http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013

But I doubt he would know what to do with it.

And neither would you because this information offers nothing relative to the fucking theory planes brought down WTC 1 and 2.

Not to mention it offers absolutely nothing relative to WTC 7.

Stop being a total fucking

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/woman-teasing-man-with-small-penis-picture-id154958940)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.   

The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:00:48 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.

No he posted a selfie and mumbled something about NIST model inputs.

I think he was looking for this http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013

But I doubt he would know what to do with it.

And neither would you because this information offers nothing relative to the fucking theory planes brought down WTC 1 and 2.

Not to mention it offers absolutely nothing relative to WTC 7.

Stop being a total fucking


You asked for the models, I linked you to that.   Also stop with the insults and stupid teenage meme pictures. 

Now you want WTC7  ok
https://www.nist.gov/node/599811?pub_id=861610
https://www.nist.gov/node/592186?pub_id=861611
https://www.nist.gov/node/595636?pub_id=861612

You can find the rest yourself.  I'm not your private library.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:01:36 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:04:46 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:09:41 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Yep, I suspected you didn't have a clue thanks for confirming it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:12:59 AM
If you are special needs, I apologize for the harsh things I said.

You seem to have lost all logical ability in a fit of rage nearly like

Fall acceleration of building 7.

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

But you asked for it.

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

I predicted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:18:37 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.   

The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

What scientific methods were utilized to prove radical ISLAM led by Osama Bin Laden was the real perp of the events of 9/11?

Interesting...Do you count hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq as innocent or is that just okay...

What about their memory?

You really are a disingenuous piece of (http://www.fullstopindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Fresh-Cow-Dung-India1.jpg)
I do not have the data inputs as requested. I will still trumpet the OS because I am weak and pathetic.
FTFY
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:19:37 AM
If you are special needs, I apologize for the harsh things I said.

You seem to have lost all logical ability in a fit of rage nearly like

Fall acceleration of building 7.

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

But you asked for it.

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

I predicted.

Another reality disconnect from you.  Seems to be your favourite thing.   Maybe you need help with reading comprehension.

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:20:27 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.   

The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

What scientific methods were utilized to prove radical ISLAM led by Osama Bin Laden was the real perp of the events of 9/11?

Interesting...Do you count hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq as innocent or is that just okay...

What about their memory?

You really are a disingenuous piece of (http://www.fullstopindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Fresh-Cow-Dung-India1.jpg)
I do not have the data inputs as requested. I will still trumpet the OS because I am weak and pathetic.
FTFY

LOL  Nice selfie,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:25:51 AM

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories. 

That is utter bullshit.

That statement is totally ludicrous and so are you.

The FOIA request was denied specifically because the NIST chief stated the data inputs/results : ..."might jeopardize public safety."

Here is a photo of suspected 9/11 co-conspirators
(http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700099990330/9999006062-l.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:33:00 AM
Rayzor, if after all this, you can't even admit that the official story has a few holes in it (to say the least) then I am honestly not sure what your motivation is, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but this is crazy.

As for your comment about "conspiracy theorists" not having the background or knowledge to understand the models, please see this thread where we destoyed you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Even putting the truth about 9/11 aside, this debate has been awfully one sided.
I am not the only one who sees it.

I also strongly support totallackeys statement that you are being disingenuous.




@Totallackey, I heard it was the emus, kangaroos are relatively easy to box but the emus have an organised military.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:33:44 AM

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories. 

That is utter bullshit.

The FOIA request was denied specifically because the NIST chief stated the data inputs might lead to another terrorist attack.

That statement is totally ludicrous and so are you.

Here is a photo of suspected 9/11 co-conspirators


More insults and more meme pictures.  You really don't get it do you.   
Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:37:34 AM
More insults and more meme pictures.  You really don't get it do you.   
Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

If you feel insulted, you absolutely should.

This proves you have some fucking clue regarding interpretation of language and data.

Now, if you would just take the next, most obvious step.

The NIST chief clearly stated why the data inputs were not released.

They were not released because of fears the inputs could be of use in another terrorist attack.

Laughable, just like your continued advocacy of the OS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:39:18 AM
(https://s10.postimg.org/nlx36mpcp/mememagick.jpg)

Memes aside,
We gave you every chance to present an argument. You didn't take it.


Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

I'm 99.99% sure I know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:43:03 AM
Rayzor, if after all this, you can't even admit that the official story has a few holes in it (to say the least) then I am honestly not sure what your motivation is, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but this is crazy.

As for your comment about "conspiracy theorists" not having the background or knowledge to understand the models, please see this thread where we destoyed you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Even putting the truth about 9/11 aside, this debate has been awfully one sided.
I am not the only one who sees it.


Your aim was to present argument that would prove to me beyond doubt that the WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition,  you failed

Your argument was non existent,  you never offered a shred of evidence,  and BHS tried to convince me that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2 claiming that they didn't even mark the outside of the building.  He further kept claiming the fires weren't hot enough despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Sorry,  but your failure to present a coherent argument is not your fault,  the evidence was against you.  Pity you are too blind to see it.

My motivation is to uncover the truth and let the fact speak for themselves.  Conspiracy theorists cherry pick facts and ignore others.

People like totallackey,  don't advance your case,  having him on your side is not something to be proud of.

PS.  Meme pictures say more about the quality of your argument than anything else you have posted,  and it's not good.

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:54:52 AM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 05:56:45 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.
What wins out by not releasing data? Truth or ignorance?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 06:06:27 AM
They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.
What wins out by not releasing data? Truth or ignorance?

Not truth that;s for sure,  but speculation based on conspiracy is not a reasonable assumption either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 06:22:15 AM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.

Don't put words in my mouth rayzor, you are being dishonest.

You are still clutching at straws.

Edit.

I believe NIST didn't release the data because the collapse of building 7 how we were told it happened, violated the laws of physics.

If they released the data people like BHS and to a much lesser extent myself would tear it to bits.

I have been clear about this from the start, you are the one putting on a circus performance.

This was the best they could do and they couldn't release the data????

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 06:26:38 AM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.

Don't put words in my mouth rayzor, you are being dishonest.

You are still clutching at straws.

No I'm being honest,  BHS claimed that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2  and purported to prove that the planes entered the building without leaving a mark.   Are you disagreeing with BHS?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 06:35:16 AM
It is a weak strawman to try to shift the debate to speculation if there were actually planes or not. I would agree with you that the evidence of planes crashing into the buildings far outweighs any other evidence I have seen, CGI wings etc.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"



I'm thinking of becoming a free-thinking flat earther,  we can dispense with boring traditional physics and maths,  we can ignore any facts that are inconvenient and focus education on watching youtube conspiracy videos. 

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun

the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 06:43:30 AM

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


Ok so you disagree with BHS.   That was never clear.  You certainly never expressed that view previously.

It's only a strawman argument if I misrepresented BHS's proposition,  I double checked what he wrote, and no it's exactly what he claimed.   So your strawman accusation is false.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2017, 07:10:32 AM
To find the truth you have to delve deep down into ordinary life logic without the added large dose of coincidence trimmings.

If people can understand what coincidence entails, then they can be 100% sure that the official report is complete bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: StillFlat on February 15, 2017, 07:17:05 AM
I'm glad someone on the other side of the world knew what happen that day.

I remember it clearly. I was sitting at the kitchen table working on school work(I was still bein home schooled at the time) while eating a bowl of ceral, you know only a mile away from the building. birds cherping, the normal sounds of new york, then all of a sudden a loud horrible bang. you know like someone blowing something up (I lived in pa prior to this, my friends father use to blow stuff up for the heck of it) wasn't just one bang, there was multiple.

you would think that if there was a "plane" we would hear that. like I said I was only a mile away on at the cornee of Mott and prince street.

it's a joke.. guess I was hearing things that day. glad the TV just so happen to catch it all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 08:21:55 AM

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.

Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 09:28:18 AM
@Totallackey, I heard it was the emus, kangaroos are relatively easy to box but the emus have an organised military.

Penguins hard at it also...

This previously unreleased photo of the co-conspirators, post deployment of boxcutters...

This photo also survived the resultant fires...

(https://images4.alphacoders.com/682/thumb-1920-682197.jpg)

A further image (previously unreleased) of the flight training...
(http://ihdwallpapers.com/download/penguins_of_madagascar_2014_movie-1920x1200.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
I'm glad someone on the other side of the world knew what happen that day.

We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 09:10:55 PM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.

Don't put words in my mouth rayzor, you are being dishonest.

You are still clutching at straws.

No I'm being honest,  BHS claimed that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2  and purported to prove that the planes entered the building without leaving a mark.   Are you disagreeing with BHS?

Misrepresented and pathetic as always rayzor...Oh what it must be like to be you.

I clearly said I don't know what happened, and only presented a logical theory. I don't think a plane hit building 1, building two I think it was a missle or drone. This comes from 1000s of people's testimonials (one even being someone here, the other being a family member), video issues, and many other items stacked together. It has become painfully obvious your ONLY argument is attempted confusion.

Leaving out the fact these two "plane wrecks" would be the first of their kind in human history (eaten inside the building, complete vaporization..Instead of reality such as the empire state building, which ironically happened EXACTLY how I explained to you a collision would happen) causing THREE buildings to fall being the first of their kind in human history in impossible form....Actually wait, let's leave out all science.

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 09:15:09 PM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.

You just sound deranged here....

By they way....They had zero detail...I have actually provided better detail in this short thread than they did.

Though I am sure their complete withholding of "information" was for our "safety"....Idiots.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 11:57:26 PM
integrity
ɪnˈtɛɡrɪti/
noun

1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.
"a gentleman of complete integrity"
synonyms:   honesty, uprightness, probity, rectitude, honour, honourableness, upstandingness, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
"I never doubted his integrity"

2.
the state of being whole and undivided.
"upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty"
synonyms:   unity, unification, wholeness, coherence, cohesion, undividedness, togetherness, solidarity, coalition
"internal racial unrest threatened the integrity of the federation"





Get some.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:02:11 AM
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:26:20 AM
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.

I've contributed a decent amount to be fair. We all do the best with what we have Rayzor... I don't pick on people for it. I do pick on people for trying to lie and cheat their way out of a debate.

The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 12:27:21 AM

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!

No no no rayzor...No twista word here...I am gonna get an answer from you before the end of this thread...Just one..

You didn't answer my question before fyi...You just said "looks real to me" then showed a video of the "first plane" (by the way, if you want to believe some guy was recording city employees doing remedial tasks first thing in the morning, then suddenly, perfectly aligned with the WTC he focuses right on the towers...Waits...Then Boom the plane hits...I have some beach property in Oklahoma for you...Prime view) Also, fyi, that was not the sound of fan jet engines (experience, not google)...Not to mention, the mystery engines were decelerating...And that alone is impossible from the pitch and trim of the visual we saw. Just to begin with, the engines would almost need to be 100 percent to just have a chance of keeping that boat stable in the air at that altitude and supposed speed (which isn't possible anyways).. Actually..I am digressing, just this video alone I could run on for pages about.

Back to the point

Describe how this is possible.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Or this

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

Or this



I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:31:32 AM


I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

My answer is that it didn't and your video shows that quite clearly.   In fact it looks exactly like the early part of the Purdue University simulation.  That I posted when you first asked the question.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:33:09 AM
How do you explain the official pictures and video?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:39:05 AM
How do you explain the official pictures and video?

I assume that question is directed to BHS,  but here is that Perdue university analysis for comparison.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 12:53:38 AM


I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

My answer is that it didn't and your video shows that quite clearly.   In fact it looks exactly like the early part of the Purdue University simulation.  That I posted when you first asked the question.



So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:02:58 AM

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:17:30 AM
What laws of physics do you consider were broken.

The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:33:41 AM
So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.

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.

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.


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 (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:34:32 AM
What laws of physics do you consider were broken.

The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.

1. No the planes didn't violate the laws of physics penetrating the building.   You need to study impact physics a bit more.
2. The temperatures got to well over the point where steel is weakened and aluminium melts.  Plenty of evidence to support that fact.
3. Actually WTC 1 and 2 fell at slower than free fall rate.  You can clearly see debris falling faster than the building itself. 
4. WTC7 is the subject of a longer discussion,  but all the evidence points to fire being the primary cause.   There's contradictory evidence of the collapse time,  look for one that shows the penthouse collapsing 6 seconds before the main collapse,  suggesting the collapse was well under way much earlier than some video footage shows.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:39:45 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.

I love Hoppy,  he's one of the few flat earthers that always has something important to add to any discussion.   

Leave my mate Hoppy alone.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:48:29 AM
That's the best he's got Bhs.

Maybe we should leave him alone.

I love Rayzor he's one of the few guys that always has something important to add to any discussion.

Leave my mate Rayzor alone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:51:26 AM

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:52:01 AM
That's the best he's got Bhs.

Maybe we should leave him alone.

I love Rayzor he's one of the few guys that always has something important to add to any discussion.

Leave my mate Rayzor alone.

Thanks
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:54:40 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:11:52 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

And so you should,  shame on you for supporting such a corrosive conspiracy.   Blatant lies like this can't be allowed to go unchallenged.

I feel sorry for BHS,  he seems to be well into the grip of the conspiracy mind set, to the extent that there may be no hope for him. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:15:13 AM
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.


I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

I am almost done myself...

Not for feeling bad, because I don't...People like him are a problem to others around him (on all issues and world view, not just this)

Just out of boredom....The only thing I give him is he hasn't ran off which most would have by now...Though just repeating nonsensical gibberish, mixed with word twisting and blatant lies is also not very impressive either...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:16:54 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

And so you should,  shame on you for supporting such a corrosive conspiracy.   Blatant lies like this can't be allowed to go unchallenged.

I feel sorry for BHS,  he seems to be well into the grip of the conspiracy mind set, to the extent that there may be no hope for him. 

Fine, I'll say it, go on, call me crazy too.
It might distract the debate for a few posts.

You have some other motive than your personal desires for holding your ground on this issue.

All you have to say is the official story has a few holes in it, especially building 7, the fact it took seven years to release the model and sixteen years later have still not released the numbers for the collapse, is suspicious.

Then the bad men will stop I promise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:21:49 AM
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

Schooled.

Quote
The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.

He has demonstrated multiple times on this thread that reading comprehension is not his strong suit...

I said it before...we all do the best with what we have.

Quote
I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I don't understand why he keeps getting up.

Quote
I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

Schooled.

Edit. I don't really feel bad.

I took Rayzors drink and laced it with known sedatives to give this motherf**ker a taste of his own medicine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:29:10 AM
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.


I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

I am almost done myself...

Not for feeling bad, because I don't...People like him are a problem to others around him (on all issues and world view, not just this)

Just out of boredom....The only thing I give him is he hasn't ran off which most would have by now...Though just repeating nonsensical gibberish, mixed with word twisting and blatant lies is also not very impressive either...

There you go again making assumptions about what I do or don't know.  In the area of impact physics I can tell from your comments that your knowledge is somewhat deficient.

You lack of basic knowledge about the physics of building collapse is also apparent.  You got the collapse mechanism fully backwards.

Back to free fall,  when you look at the debris falling faster than the building what does that tell you?    BTW what is "8℅ +-"  are you trying to say free fall pus or minus,  that statement alone would get you a fail in my class.  You can't fall unassisted faster than free fall.  So let's give you a pass,  and assume that's not what you meant, so please clarify your statement.

Both WTC1 and WTC2 took approximately 16 seconds to collapse. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:32:43 AM


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:47:01 AM

You have some other motive than your personal desires for holding your ground on this issue.


This is becoming the only option remaining.... Sadly....

I bet hoppy will come in later and explain the motive  :D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:48:37 AM
It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

(https://s24.postimg.org/ymlz86qnp/lolrayzor.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:50:43 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:53:42 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You lost its over, call it quits son.

Watch the videos and tell me again Rayzor 16 seconds?

Maybe if you count until the dust settled.

Brainlet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:55:27 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:56:10 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You want to be called brain damaged?    That's a bit abnormal even for a 911 conspiracy looney like you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:57:06 AM
Forgot to include my 8 percent :D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:59:26 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You want to be called brain damaged?    That's a bit abnormal even for a 911 conspiracy looney like you.

I'll buy you a beer while you do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

Destroyed so hard, full credit for determination.

Rayzor, don't get up, please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:01:14 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

You can have you own deranged opinions based on zero evidence,  but you aren't allowed to have your own number system.  Well actually you can,  but you need to define it beforehand. 

I was expecting you to challenge the 16 seconds.   But you disappointed me yet again.   I think video evidence shows 13-16 seconds, but I wouldn't argue if you claimed 10-11 seocnds,  just don't claim free-fall or in your case faster than free-fall. 

In any event the collapse time doesn't support the controlled demolition theory.

You may now revert to your natural mode of debate and post a few more teenage meme pictures,  I could use a laugh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You want to be called brain damaged?    That's a bit abnormal even for a 911 conspiracy looney like you.

Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:03:29 AM
FASTER THAN FREEFALL!?!? MATE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!? DO YOU THINK THEY HAD ROCKETS ON THE ROOF!?!?

Edit, 10 deep breaths.

Please explain where / how either of us claimed "faster than freefall".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:06:40 AM
FASTER THAN FREEFALL!?!? MATE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!? DO YOU THINK THEY HAD ROCKETS ON THE ROOF!?!?

Yep, surprised me too,  I thought BHS had a PhD,  but to be fair he later corrected it and said he was being sarcastic.  personally I think he was googling for meme pictures.  and was distracted.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:07:56 AM
You, good sir, are a scoundrel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:08:11 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

You can have you own deranged opinions based on zero evidence,  but you aren't allowed to have your own number system.  Well actually you can,  but you need to define it beforehand. 

I was expecting you to challenge the 16 seconds.   But you disappointed me yet again.   I think video evidence shows 13-16 seconds, but I wouldn't argue if you claimed 10-11 seocnds,  just don't claim free-fall or in your case faster than free-fall. 

In any event the collapse time doesn't support the controlled demolition theory.

You may now revert to your natural mode of debate and post a few more teenage meme pictures,  I could use a laugh.

What the hell type answer is this?????

Let's examine my reply...Again...


Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

I did challenge your 16 seconds....I clearly said it was shorter..I was being fair by leaving it a bit open... It could be from 10-13 seconds..Tough to tell at the very end.

The rest of your response doesn't really argue anything?

So I am guessing that is your white flag?


Just say when and I will quit, I never kicked a man once he tapped out.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:17:14 AM
Rayzor, don't get up, please.

Please listen
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:20:30 AM
I did challenge your 16 seconds....I clearly said it was shorter..I was being fair by leaving it a bit open... It could be from 10-13 seconds..Tough to tell at the very end.

The rest of your response doesn't really argue anything?

So I am guessing that is your white flag?
Just say when and I will quit, I never kicked a man once he tapped out.

I can see you are emotionally wedded to your conspiracy theory,  since you appear to take criticism personally,  that tells me everything I need to know.  You will never change your mind,  when confronted with evidence that contradicts your entrenched world view you lash out.   I've got to say it's not a healthy state of mind you are in.  Keep telling yourself you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.   

And yes,  I'm going to call it quits,  there's just so much stupidity I can stomach,   you  are  the 911 version of sceptimatic.    And trust me that's no compliment.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:26:58 AM
I'll accept that, good day sir.

(https://s21.postimg.org/l2f6tw15j/2017_02_16_19_22_41_451259819.jpg)

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

@ Bhs

(https://s3.postimg.org/73jty1e8z/images_25.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:31:04 AM
I did challenge your 16 seconds....I clearly said it was shorter..I was being fair by leaving it a bit open... It could be from 10-13 seconds..Tough to tell at the very end.

The rest of your response doesn't really argue anything?

So I am guessing that is your white flag?
Just say when and I will quit, I never kicked a man once he tapped out.

I can see you are emotionally wedded to your conspiracy theory,  since you appear to take criticism personally,  that tells me everything I need to know.  You will never change your mind,  when confronted with evidence that contradicts your entrenched world view you lash out.   I've got to say it's not a healthy state of mind you are in.  Keep telling yourself you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.   

And yes,  I'm going to call it quits,  there's just so much stupidity I can stomach,   you  are  the 911 version of sceptimatic.    And trust me that's no compliment.

Also.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/Submit
noun

the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk; More

irony1
ˈʌɪrəni/
noun

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism; More

a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So thick you can cut it with a knife.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:32:29 AM
You feel good that you support an evil corrosive conspiracy theory.    Really?

I see you found your dictionary again.  Hang on to that,  there might be some big words coming along soon.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:34:03 AM
I can see you are emotionally wedded to your conspiracy theory,  since you appear to take criticism personally,  that tells me everything I need to know.  You will never change your mind,  when confronted with evidence that contradicts your entrenched world view you lash out.   I've got to say it's not a healthy state of mind you are in.  Keep telling yourself you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.   

And yes,  I'm going to call it quits,  there's just so much stupidity I can stomach,   you  are  the 911 version of sceptimatic.    And trust me that's no compliment.

^^^
This ladies and gentlemen is what we call a mirroring deflection ladies and gentlemen...

I will ask what evidence you actually presenting besides stomping your feet and yelling so you can't hear me. If you were a child I would say it's time for a time out....AND NO DESSERT FOR YOU!!!

Also...You never addressed this one either...


Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

Though I wouldn't either if I were you..

Not a very proud way to bow out after getting demolished (ha ha no pun intended)..

Just for kicks...Since you love memes so much, just for you as you leave..

(http://i64.tinypic.com/34or6mq.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:38:26 AM
Not a very proud way to bow out after getting demolished (ha ha no pun intended)..

No I called it quits after your arse backwards description of the collapse,  I realised then and there, you were too far gone to be reached.

Not to mention your looney theory of no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,   That should have alerted me to the type of nutcase I was dealing with.

I seriously thought you were genuine before this thread,  glad to see the real you emerge from the debris.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:41:00 AM
You feel good that you support an evil corrosive conspiracy theory.    Really?

Do you? Tell me Rayzor, do you? After eight pages, tell me how you feel about this. I want to know.

"His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:43:08 AM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

This prediction is Erie....

Perhaps I should get stock tips from dispute
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:44:32 AM
I seriously thought you were genuine before this thread,  glad to see the real you emerge from the debris.

I never paid attention to you, desu, your posts are usually stale and boring.

Now I know your true character, liked you better when I didn't care.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:45:03 AM
You feel good that you support an evil corrosive conspiracy theory.    Really?

Do you? Tell me Rayzor, do you? After eight pages, tell me how you feel about this. I want to know.

"His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives."

I had hoped that the truth would emerge by presenting the evidence in an objective analytical manner,  maths, physics and science  doesn't lie. Still doesn't
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:46:34 AM
It did mate, it did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:48:05 AM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

This prediction is Erie....

Perhaps I should get stock tips from dispute

Literature isn't your strong suit either Erie is a lake,  you might have meant eerie.  But his prediction was right,  just got the sides wrong. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:51:19 AM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

This prediction is Erie....

Perhaps I should get stock tips from dispute

Literature isn't your strong suit either Erie is a lake,  you might have meant eerie.  But his prediction was right,  just got the sides wrong.

Is there no depth you won't sink to?

I'm predicting...no...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:52:23 AM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

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

But you asked for it.

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

Reply #1 ladies and gentleman.

Edit.

The logic we used on this entire thread is still applicable, all things considered, we were fair and reasonable and gave you every chace to post an argument with your own words.

...you posted a bunk computer model...

Also our insults have been on point, you are the one following the fruit loop.

I lost my cool when you tried to misrepresent our position as to arguing the buildings fell faster than free fall.

Apart from that I'm pretty happy, the memes were really getting to you by the end.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:54:04 AM

Is there no depth you won't sink to?

I'm predicting...no...

Another prediction,  actually I shouldn't make fun of BHS,  his phone keeps auto correcting his posts,  Erie, eerie also  he meant to say +- 8 % of free fall,  ... oh wait that's what he did say  LOL
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:56:16 AM
Not a very proud way to bow out after getting demolished (ha ha no pun intended)..

No I called it quits after your arse backwards description of the collapse,  I realised then and there, you were too far gone to be reached.

Not to mention your looney theory of no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,   That should have alerted me to the type of nutcase I was dealing with.

I seriously thought you were genuine before this thread,  glad to see the real you emerge from the debris.

Lying as always....Going out true to form...

You truly are all of jacks desperation...It is a fowl odor.

I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

How many times have I said I don't want to speak hypothetical, but just facts? You cannot even hold a candle with facts, so you must use other tactics.


And my "backwards" views of the towers is exactly how they were build..I explained how they would fall. You cannot handle that...So of course it is backwards to you.

UNT decided to issue a diploma to me telling me I could talk about this with authority, multiple companies have issued certs to me saying I can talk about this with authority, 1000s of customers through a decade pay me so I can do this stuff for them with an authority

What do you have?

You can't even form a coherent simple rebuttal besides "Nuh uh!!"

Smdh ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:59:39 AM
You can't even form a coherent simple rebuttal besides "Nuh uh!!"

Smdh ::)

I think you are giving him entirely too much credit there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:02:31 AM
I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

Correct you didn't  you said "no planes hit the towers",  and that's what I repeated.   You seem to be unable to read.  is that a problem with your phone still?  Or are you just lazy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:03:46 AM

Is there no depth you won't sink to?

I'm predicting...no...

Another prediction,  actually I shouldn't make fun of BHS,  his phone keeps auto correcting his posts,  Erie, eerie also  he meant to say +- 8 % of free fall,  ... oh wait that's what he did say  LOL

Hey numb nuts...

Has that rash cleared up yet?

Are you going to address this:


Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM
Hey numb nuts...

Has that rash cleared up yet?

Are you going to address this:

 

Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.


Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?


I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:14:10 AM
I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

Correct you didn't  you said "no planes hit the towers",  and that's what I repeated.   You seem to be unable to read.  is that a problem with your phone still?  Or are you just lazy?

I stated exactly what I present as an hypothesis and why...I would get way more in-depth if I didn't think it was a waste. I also continuously said let's not talk about that, because it doesn't matter..Let's just focus on the facts.

Yes I am lazy with my posts...I have already told you that...Not to mention..

Yep since I don't proof read my stuff, and that is your only argument EVER. I say good for you. My brain has always sucked at spelling, sorry, you can't have everything. Numbers, logic, problem solving skills ect is my strong suit. I knew when I was a kid I was going to have problems there. Parts of my brain is over develped other parts are a bit lacking (people skills sometimes, over thinking the smallest task, and a few other issues) Also being dyslexic has never helped matters.

Dug that up...Since typically spelling is an attack here from people towards me when they have lost a debate.

I have had to battle through a perplexity of mental issues to get where I am, and it was and still isn't an easy road. So if you want to make fun of me on misspellings, or the fact I use auto correct because I can't spell worth a fuck...fine by you..

Fortunately I am not debating about grammar or spelling, nor would I ever.

We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:18:09 AM
I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.


Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:29:04 AM
Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.

I asked her last night. She replied with this signal:
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/woman-teasing-man-with-small-penis-picture-id154958940)

Said she was not going to go any further.

I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.
Nice to know your reality includes a definition of clarity more fitting of
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ic6N7gmKx6Q/maxresdefault.jpg)

Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:42:27 AM
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

There is nothing more I can do for you...Anything I presented you either ignored, resorted to ad hominem responses, or simply said "Well the officials said so, I believe them"...A governments dream.

Everything i said was grounded in science, experience (between mine and other people's recordable experience) and logic. I stated things that were MY opinion very clearly, just because you kept asking for it..I didn't even want to talk about that. I stated that on page one...All you have used is diversion and confusion tactics...

This is literally 2 percent of what I know about this subject...I can't even get in the good stuff with you, because you can't even make it past the opening statement.


You wanna win me over....talk to me like someone intelligent I should give an ear to.

When you get this...

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Refute it....Tell me why I am wrong...Give me specifics..

If you aren't qualified..Tell me, and leave the conversation...

This is nothing...Just chicken scratch for me...I can tell you the fucking metallurgical make up of every fucking piece of structural metal in that building and the supposed vessel that struck it...AND the concrete AND the enternal water content. I can support my position to the molecular level if you want to...Wanna talk design fine...I can tell you how many estimated fucking rivets, bolts, spacers etc etc etc...Wanna talk design theory, let's go...

I can defend my position from 1000 different angles...

But we haven't even walked past the door...

Your answer of "NIST says so" is unacceptable...especially when it goes against physics and reality...I need another...And I need a real one.

Either you can do this or you can't....

You have options...

Actually bring it for once...

Admit you are wrong...

Admit you are over your head and walk...

Or admit you just want to believe in magic...

I am tired of wasting my time.

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Agreed...No one wins....The more people there like symptom, the easier it is for the true perpetrators to get away with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:49:02 AM
Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.

I asked her last night. She replied with this signal:
Said she was not going to go any further.

That's what she did when I asked her what was she used to.

I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.
Nice to know your reality includes a definition of clarity more fitting of
Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.   At least sokarul is sane,  unlike the 911 conspiracy loonies.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:54:49 AM
If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:57:03 AM
Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.   At least sokarul is sane,  unlike the 911 conspiracy loonies.
Your entire arguments here in a synopsis:

Q: "Why did WTC 1 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: "Why did WTC 2 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: Why did WTC 7 fall?
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"

Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:08:48 AM
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

There is nothing more I can do for you...Anything I presented you either ignored, resorted to ad hominem responses, or simply said "Well the officials said so, I believe them"...A governments dream.

Everything i said was grounded in science, experience (between mine and other people's recordable experience) and logic. I stated things that were MY opinion very clearly, just because you kept asking for it..I didn't even want to talk about that. I stated that on page one...All you have used is diversion and confusion tactics...

This is literally 2 percent of what I know about this subject...I can't even get in the good stuff with you, because you can't even make it past the opening statement.


You wanna win me over....talk to me like someone intelligent I should give an ear to.

When you get this...

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Refute it....Tell me why I am wrong...Give me specifics..

If you aren't qualified..Tell me, and leave the conversation...

This is nothing...Just chicken scratch for me...I can tell you the fucking metallurgical make up of every fucking piece of structural metal in that building and the supposed vessel that struck it...AND the concrete AND the enternal water content. I can support my position to the molecular level if you want to...Wanna talk design fine...I can tell you how many estimated fucking rivets, bolts, spacers etc etc etc...Wanna talk design theory, let's go...

I can defend my position from 1000 different angles...

But we haven't even walked past the door...

Your answer of "NIST says so" is unacceptable...especially when it goes against physics and reality...I need another...And I need a real one.

Either you can do this or you can't....

You have options...

Actually bring it for once...

Admit you are wrong...

Admit you are over your head and walk...

Or admit you just want to believe in magic...

I am tired of wasting my time.

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Agreed...No one wins....The more people there like symptom, the easier it is for the true perpetrators to get away with it.

You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:15:33 AM
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:18:22 AM
Your entire arguments here in a synopsis:

I see you've put your best work into this, so I feel obliged to respond

Q: "Why did WTC 1 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
A. It got hit by a 767  with a full fuel load. (that's a big aircraft in case you weren't sure)

Q: "Why did WTC 2 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
See WTC1,  But it was a different plane, same type however.

Q: Why did WTC 7 fall?
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
It was a directed energy weapon from an alien spacecraft.  ( now you know the truth keep it quiet)

Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"
If you know better go for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:23:55 AM
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Why stop,  I've walked away from debating loonies, now  I'm having fun skewering a few 911 truthers.   

Although totallackey isn't in Papa Legba's class,  he's a bit of a pushover.  Watch him come back at me with a clever meme picture...  dumb as fuck!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:26:54 AM
You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

You gave me zero chances...But this is a good step here.

You said metal fire..Used the words burning...So yes, I came in with that. Burning and melting are two different things...One is physical, other chemical...Different temps required as well.

You are correct in what you said...Simple stuff, nothing secret about it.

There are schools of thought for the water issue...some reports said the sprinkler system had a "technical issue" others the system was turned off and other ideas. Simple fact, they didn't turn on for whatever reason..There was no pressure at all past the 60th which is where the main portioning and termination valves for the upper levels were.

Simple case, there was no pressure or running emergency what up stairs...We can confirm that with video footage. We can also see no ignition of any hydrogen gas from the footage. Also whatever liquid metal we saw up there wasn't from a fire, nor from the plane, if it could have been melted as such, there wouldn't not have been enough of it in one spot to continue a process like that to distribute that much material to be visible like that. Plus the tower was still at a level, and the floors it was coming out of was still at a level, makes no sense for it to just be "flowing out"...

Sure there could have been a trace amounts of condensation MAYBE if I believe the concrete got hot enough in a spot or two to boil the trapped water from processing out of it.

Nice theory though...Step in the right direction
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Why stop,  I've walked away from debating loonies, now  I'm having fun skewering a few 911 truthers.   

Although totallackey isn't in Papa Legba's class,  he's a bit of a pushover.  Watch him come back at me with a clever meme picture...  dumb as fuck!


I made a thread for you in AR, keep the personal attacks out of the upper fora, please. This is embarrassing now. If you think you are "skewering" anyone here, you are delusional.

Fall acceleration of building 7.

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

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 05:35:47 AM
I see you've put your best work into this, so I feel obliged to respond.
Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"
If you know better go for it.

I will take this evasion, mental reservation, and equivocation, on your part and chalk it up to the fact you know the reason provided by the NIST is bull shit.

Why you do not come right out and unequivocally state that in writing is a clear indication of your total lack of character and integrity.

I know I have written some pretty demeaning things here, directed at many different accounts.

Lately, I have really tried hard to not exhibit this type of behavior in the Upper Fora and left in Angry Ranting where it belongs.

So much for that, you spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.

No picture, as I am attempting to be as clear as possible and do not wish my writing to be misconstrued.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:36:26 AM
Umm...  this isn't the upper fora,  we relocated to the basement ages ago, remember you asked for it to be moved.   You can go vent there if you like, 

I'm happy here having an intelligent discussion with totallackey. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:39:42 AM
Umm...  this isn't the upper fora,  we relocated to the basement ages ago, remember you asked for it to be moved.   You can go vent there if you like, 

I'm happy here having an intelligent discussion with totallackey.

It's still a forum that visitors can see your foul attitude and language.

I don't want you to try and shitpost this into oblivion.

Personal attacks are against the rules.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:40:26 AM
You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

You gave me zero chances...But this is a good step here.

You said metal fire..Used the words burning...So yes, I came in with that. Burning and melting are two different things...One is physical, other chemical...Different temps required as well.

You are correct in what you said...Simple stuff, nothing secret about it.

There are schools of thought for the water issue...some reports said the sprinkler system had a "technical issue" others the system was turned off and other ideas. Simple fact, they didn't turn on for whatever reason..There was no pressure at all past the 60th which is where the main portioning and termination valves for the upper levels were.

Simple case, there was no pressure or running emergency what up stairs...We can confirm that with video footage. We can also see no ignition of any hydrogen gas from the footage. Also whatever liquid metal we saw up there wasn't from a fire, nor from the plane, if it could have been melted as such, there wouldn't not have been enough of it in one spot to continue a process like that to distribute that much material to be visible like that. Plus the tower was still at a level, and the floors it was coming out of was still at a level, makes no sense for it to just be "flowing out"...

Sure there could have been a trace amounts of condensation MAYBE if I believe the concrete got hot enough in a spot or two to boil the trapped water from processing out of it.

Nice theory though...Step in the right direction

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

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


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

I don't want this to degenerate to a who said what and when,  you can go back and read it yourself,  but nowhere did I mention magnesium fire, or metal fire or anything like that.  I just want to know why that came into your mind?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:43:20 AM
I wouldn't entertain him man, he's just fishing for something he can try and use to "get" you.

We comprehensively destroyed him, he knows, that's why he wants to turn this thread into a joke, it isn't.

Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:45:11 AM
So much for that, totallackey is a spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.

Agreed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:49:45 AM
Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:54:30 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 06:02:30 AM
I wouldn't entertain him man, he's just fishing for something he can try and use to "get" you.

We comprehensively destroyed him, he knows, that's why he wants to turn this thread into a joke, it isn't.

Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.

I know....It seemed like he was trying to present a thought out theory.

Though incorrect, it was still something in the right direction of proper communication so I wanted to support that.

However, if he returns back, I will start the totallackey approach and write him off...Speaking of that..

Lately, I have really tried hard to not exhibit this type of behavior in the Upper Fora and left in Angry Ranting where it belongs.

I have noticed your calm demeanor...Well done..

Quote
So much for that, you spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.
Whoops...Slipped up a bit ha ha ha..
Quote
No picture, as I am attempting to be as clear as possible and do not wish my writing to be misconstrued.
This, and really this whole posts his one of your most humourous post you have done lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:11:40 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 06:29:40 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.
Razor, just stop. Mods please lock this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.

Have you cast in direct sunlight before? Even at that temp you are not going to see a red color in direct sunlight... Especially 100s or thousands of feet away.

Especially once it broke off from the main heat source, and fell for about 10 feet or so, it would already start to harden and lose any glow it had. Watch in the vid...None of that is seen, stays bright amber.

Definitely steel or something else...

It is a very important data point...But only speculation can answer.

Remember how I said I would demo the towers to make it look like it did if my company was paid? You would see that from the thermite v cuts before I hit the c4 dislodging charges. It would ash like that. Thermite produces a ton of slag, very dirty.

Worse than a gas cutting torch...



A few angles of the flow, locations and color.

Watch the way it acts...You would expect to see a guy up there cutting away with a gas torch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:44:59 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.

Have you cast in direct sunlight before? Even at that temp you are not going to see a red color in direct sunlight... Especially 100s or thousands of feet away.

Especially once it broke off from the main heat source, and fell for about 10 feet or so, it would already start to harden and lose any glow it had. Watch in the vid...None of that is seen, stays bright amber.

Definitely steel or something else...

It is a very important data point...But only speculation can answer.

Remember how I said I would demo the towers to make it look like it did if my company was paid? You would see that from the thermite v cuts before I hit the c4 dislodging charges. It would ash like that. Thermite produces a ton of slag, very dirty.

Worse than a gas cutting torch...



A few angles of the flow, locations and color.

Watch the way it acts...You would expect to see a guy up there cutting away with a gas torch.

The colour of that metal gives you an indication of the temperature.

Whenever I've cast aluminium it's always at lower temperatures,  and so it's always silver colour whenever I've been casting.   I've never had  aluminium up to red heat temperatures,  But I  do run the furnace at 1200C every so often,  so I could put some in a crucible and see what colour it is at 1200, then watch the colour change as it cools.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 07:02:48 AM
Whenever I've cast aluminium it's always at lower temperatures,  and so it's always silver colour whenever I've been casting.   I've never had  aluminium up to red heat temperatures,  But I  do run the furnace at 1200C every so often,  so I could put some in a crucible and see what colour it is at 1200, then watch the colour change as it cools.

You can if you want, I don't know how hot I have seen it, probably around 700 degrees or so, never had any need to go hotter...Most aluminum work we do is in building 2 which has a ton of natural light, I can never remember seeing it "glow red" in there..Just silver/white. Low light areas, or lack of natural light, I can see the redish glow.

I have never seen aluminum act like that though being broken off...Either by cutting or melting. I would put my left nut it's steel or "something else" we are seeing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 08:05:05 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.


Nope,  Debunked extensively here

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/disinfo-aluminum-planes-cannot-penetrate-steel-buildings/

No laws of Physics were broken.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 08:10:05 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.


Nope,  Debunked extensively here

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/disinfo-aluminum-planes-cannot-penetrate-steel-buildings/

No laws of Physics were broken.
No problem. In future, just understand that what I put out is not for you. I know what you are and you're a complete waste of time, Geoff.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 08:35:27 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.


Nope,  Debunked extensively here

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/disinfo-aluminum-planes-cannot-penetrate-steel-buildings/

No laws of Physics were broken.

Are you kidding me....You can watch the first 10 minutes and say nothing is wrong? Did you not see how a 767 performances at low altitude (I already said this before, but the video showed one)...That is reality, and I promise you, that was prob only about 250mph..

As I said before, even if you could get them too 500 mph they would never hold together...This isn't opinion, this is absolute fact. Not to mention pull the turns and maneuvers they did at that speed..No...Then add people who couldn't handle a Cessna at 125...No..

You can really watch the videos frame by frame and say everything is the way they say it? There is nothing wrong with the story...Forget anything else...Just these small facts..

Watching the laws of physics broken on camera...And know the supposed aircraft couldn't even fly at that speed and altitude?

Watch the planes disappear into the building without leaving a single damn mark....A shred of debris....Nothing....Nadda....

Then suddenly...Boom... Explosion and afterwards it's an exact imprint...Wing tips and all.

Just these few things....How can you accept 100 percent vicious lies with a smile and say they are truth?


Either you must live in this reality for whatever reason, you are mentally incapacitated...Or I can't believe I am using this word, a really good to life actual shill.

I am just mystified
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 08:44:47 AM

Thanks for the video scepti...Never seen that before.

I don't know anything about holographic technology...I am all mechanical, structural, some electrical stuff etc but nothing as advanced as holographic tech.... I have heard the theory and dismissed it, as I have stated here, I have always put money on a drone or missle....Just fixed to look as a plane on film.

However, seeing that Loch Ness hologram....That thing creeped me out. And I have known about the plane fly by caught on film for building two....Just never put more time into it. As I have shown here, I don't like putting time into something I can't prove hands on.

It sure makes me think though....Maybe the holographic tech isn't out of the picture after all, still a bit of a long shot though.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2017, 09:04:31 AM
To all those who don't think that an aluminum plane traveling at several hundred mph can penetrate a steel and concrete builging:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/36/34/6536341071f2fef73598e637097663d7.jpg)
(https://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/tornado-pampa-corn-stalk-16nov15-kersh.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0)
(http://www.strangebusiness.com/images/content/176028.jpg)
(http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/TStorms/record_album.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:16:21 AM
My starting position is that there is no conspiracy...

Your starting position loses the debate as even the OS states clearly there was a conspiracy. The OS states multiple persons conspired to bring down WTC 1 and 2, attack the Pentagon, and purportedly the White House.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
To all those who don't think that an aluminum plane traveling at several hundred mph can penetrate a steel and concrete builging:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/36/34/6536341071f2fef73598e637097663d7.jpg)
(https://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/tornado-pampa-corn-stalk-16nov15-kersh.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0)
(http://www.strangebusiness.com/images/content/176028.jpg)
(http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/TStorms/record_album.jpg)

Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 09:34:02 AM
To all those who don't think that an aluminum plane traveling at several hundred mph can penetrate a steel and concrete builging:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/36/34/6536341071f2fef73598e637097663d7.jpg)
(https://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/tornado-pampa-corn-stalk-16nov15-kersh.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0)
(http://www.strangebusiness.com/images/content/176028.jpg)
(http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/TStorms/record_album.jpg)

So what is this proving? I live in tornado alley...I am fully aware of a tornado's power. . Hell one hit our property when I was a kid on the state line of OK/Kansas...Was finding our stuff for years after, once almost 5 miles away.

Plus the pictures you showed was horrible..The first one was above the bricks, just barely skimmed them, just had to go through thin tin I could fart through.

Second was thin tin, the last, tree was already split, just lucky shot with the record...The side walk was impressive, however, not super hard to puncture curb concrete like that, can also see how much of the tree material it took with it.

However...Any of these, if we had it on film, would clearly show the projectile entering, the wood shedding etc etc etc...Whatever would happen in reality.


The issue isn't not being able to penetrate...It's what we saw... I described what would truly happen (and this is evident in the empire accident for example), this is real and follows physics as well as reality.

Though what we saw in 2001 did not. The planes passed through the building without leaving a mark...Nothing on the building, no hole.. Nothing. No debris on the outside of the building or shedding... Nothing. Just slip...Like magic..

That isn't reality.

Then boom...An Explosion, smoke clears...What do we have? A perfect silhouette of plane...no...This isn't reality...

Never mind the planes themselves couldn't even get there...But that's another post.

Want reality...Check out the empire state building accident after math...

I would stay clear of the execution pit markjo.... I'm not heiwa and this isn't a fairy tale...

Plus, still haven't cleaned out all the Rayzor guts from the pit...Cleaning crew is slow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:34:48 AM
In any case what do you think is going to happen when a fully loaded 767 which weighs 175,000 kg, such as  AA11 which was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the building,  and UA175 was travelling at 590 mph

Do you like making crap up?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:49:17 AM
Ok physics it is, let's start with the experimental evidence.

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

Type of buildings flattened by 100 mile an hour winds (and their builders):
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a0/a9/cf/a0a9cf18b6f89e6de12ee8590b876e18.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2017, 10:03:00 AM
Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:13:39 AM
Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?

Why would you even ask that question when this response to you is a few post above?

Clearly you are not asking a real question...

The issue isn't not being able to penetrate...It's what we saw... I described what would truly happen (and this is evident in the empire accident for example), this is real and follows physics as well as reality.

Though what we saw in 2001 did not. The planes passed through the building without leaving a mark...Nothing on the building, no hole.. Nothing. No debris on the outside of the building or shedding... Nothing. Just slip...Like magic..

That isn't reality.

Then boom...An Explosion, smoke clears...What do we have? A perfect silhouette of plane...no...This isn't reality...

Never mind the planes themselves couldn't even get there...But that's another post.

Want reality...Check out the empire state building accident after math...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 10:36:39 AM
Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?

Who wrote it couldn't?

I am sure it would.

I am also sure the architects and builders of WTC 1 and 2 stated the buildings could survive the impact of a jet plane without being destroyed.

I am also sure your pretty pictures are useless as tits on a penguin.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2017, 01:04:02 PM
I am also sure the architects and builders of WTC 1 and 2 stated the buildings could survive the impact of a jet plane without being destroyed.
Actually, the buildings did survive the impacts.  It was the resulting fires that did the buildings in.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:55:06 PM
Markjo, to be fair you are quite late getting here.

To come here after 10 pages to make a strawman is beneath you. I usually find your posts well thought out.

Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?

Why would you even ask that question when this response to you is a few post above?

Clearly you are not asking a real question...

The issue isn't not being able to penetrate...It's what we saw... I described what would truly happen (and this is evident in the empire accident for example), this is real and follows physics as well as reality.

Though what we saw in 2001 did not. The planes passed through the building without leaving a mark...Nothing on the building, no hole.. Nothing. No debris on the outside of the building or shedding... Nothing. Just slip...Like magic..

That isn't reality.

Then boom...An Explosion, smoke clears...What do we have? A perfect silhouette of plane...no...This isn't reality...

Never mind the planes themselves couldn't even get there...But that's another post.

Want reality...Check out the empire state building accident after math...


No one has argued that the planes wouldn't have caused "significant damage."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:31:05 PM
I am also sure the architects and builders of WTC 1 and 2 stated the buildings could survive the impact of a jet plane without being destroyed.
Actually, the buildings did survive the impacts.  It was the resulting fires that did the buildings in.

It's like a time warp to the beginning of the thread...With an argument equally as horrible.

You usually have much better than this markjo..Are you just bored saying things?

One more time....


I would stay clear of the execution pit markjo.... I'm not heiwa and this isn't a fairy tale...

Plus, still haven't cleaned out all the Rayzor guts from the pit...Cleaning crew is slow.

In Texas, you only have to say you feel threatened 3 times or get out of my house three times before you can legally shoot them...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:39:52 PM
I would stay clear of the execution pit markjo.... I'm not heiwa and this isn't a fairy tale...

Plus, still haven't cleaned out all the Rayzor guts from the pit...Cleaning crew is slow.

In Texas, you only have to say you feel threatened 3 times or get out of my house three times before you can legally shoot them...

You should take over Trump's press conferences.   You'd fit right in.   Alternative facts seem to be your specialty,  well next to alternative physics that is.

Let's see what the 911 truthers think about the No Plane Theorists

"There is an old 9/11 theory that came out years ago that claims the media faked the planes hitting the Towers and that digital manipulation/Holograms/CGI was used in every single video/photo there is. Crazy? I know. The Truth Movement often labels this theory as the “No Plane Theory (NPT)”. These “No-Planers” claim that CGI and/or holograms were used and that there were no planes at all that hit the Towers.

One of the first documentaries to promote the “No Plane Theory” is called “September Clues” and it was created by Simon Shack. Simon is not alone on his crazy beliefs. Other so called 9/11 “Truthers” that promote the No Plane Theory (NPT) are James Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Killtown, Ace Baker and many of their “useful idiots” on social media. The “No Plane Theory” is an old disinformation theory that has been used by “agents” in order to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. Anyone that believes in such nonsense is not for the 9/11 Truth Movement.

"

So even the most delusional conspiracy nutters think that "no planers" like you, are so far off the planet, that you are giving the tin foil hat brigade a bad name.

Says it all really.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:47:25 PM
I agree, purposely trying to shift the focus of the debate from the physics of the impact, crash, subsequent fires and demolitions / collapse to "holographic planes" reeks of controlled opposition and shillary.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Dude strawman.

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

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
Dude strawman.

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

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

You should go back and get out your dictionary and look up strawman again, and try to read and understand what it actually means.

I know you have a short attention span,  and can't think logically,  but luckily I'm here to help you.   It was actually sceptimatic's video that introduced holographic planes into the discussion.

Don't tell me you didn't watch it?

BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Dude strawman.

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

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:19:22 PM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

While you are at it, pony up with the reason why you reject the reason provided by the NIST chair in his response to the FOIA request for the inputs/results data utilized for the modeling.

Further, please explain how you can trumpet science on the one hand and so thoroughly reject the scientific method on the other?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:23:51 PM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

The post I referred to is this one.


Thanks for the video scepti...Never seen that before.

I don't know anything about holographic technology...I am all mechanical, structural, some electrical stuff etc but nothing as advanced as holographic tech.... I have heard the theory and dismissed it, as I have stated here, I have always put money on a drone or missle....Just fixed to look as a plane on film.

However, seeing that Loch Ness hologram....That thing creeped me out. And I have known about the plane fly by caught on film for building two....Just never put more time into it. As I have shown here, I don't like putting time into something I can't prove hands on.

It sure makes me think though....Maybe the holographic tech isn't out of the picture after all, still a bit of a long shot though.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Dude strawman.

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

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:28:13 PM
The post I referred to is this one.


Thanks for the video scepti...Never seen that before.

I don't know anything about holographic technology...I am all mechanical, structural, some electrical stuff etc but nothing as advanced as holographic tech.... I have heard the theory and dismissed it, as I have stated here, I have always put money on a drone or missle....Just fixed to look as a plane on film.

However, seeing that Loch Ness hologram....That thing creeped me out. And I have known about the plane fly by caught on film for building two....Just never put more time into it. As I have shown here, I don't like putting time into something I can't prove hands on.

It sure makes me think though....Maybe the holographic tech isn't out of the picture after all, still a bit of a long shot though.

Please address the rest of my post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:28:44 PM
So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

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

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

Pick one.


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

Cause thermodynamics, mostly.

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

I also have no doubt that those planes looked the part but again... this is speculation, I am looking forward to starting the debate.

Edit @ BHS That's a really good point illustrated by an official photo.

I will give the no planes idea a lot more thought.

apologize.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:30:31 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:31:21 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

Sounds like a textbook strawman to me mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:31:50 PM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

While you are at it, pony up with the reason why you reject the reason provided by the NIST chair in his response to the FOIA request for the inputs/results data utilized for the modeling.

Further, please explain how you can trumpet science on the one hand and so thoroughly reject the scientific method on the other?

I've repeatedly said I don't know why they don't release specific data, it's political, and that's not a matter in which I have any expertise,  want to talk physics,  fine I'm there. 

I'll say it again, from my point of view, I see no valid reason why the data could not be released.     

I did speculate that they might not want conspiracy nutters second guessing their model choices,  but that's just pure speculation,  I'm not going to run around in my tin foil hat shouting conspiracy based on pure speculation.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:34:39 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

No, you are dead  wrong,  I asked him repeatedly if he was really saying that no planes struck the buildings,  and he confirmed it several times that was exactly what he meant.
I can go back and quote exactly what was said, but you can do that just as easily yourself.

I'll accept that apology whenever you are ready.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:34:53 PM
The truth will come out in the end, Rayzor, you shouldn't fear the truth, truth is beauty, beauty is truth. The last five pages reek of damage control.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:44:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone
apologize.

Really,  you did actually say you thought the planes were packed with explosives.   So that's not misrepresentation.

Personally I believe aircraft did hit the buildings, I think they were drone driven and packed with explosives to give us a Hollywood plane crash. I think the witnesses were correct in saying planes hit the buildings.

I'll accept you apology whenever you are ready.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:46:03 PM
The truth will come out in the end, Rayzor, you shouldn't fear the truth, truth is beauty, beauty is truth. The last five pages reek of damage control.

I agree,  if you stopped blathering long enough to think logically,  you'd realize that  falsely shouting "strawman"  every five minutes is just  weakening your contributions to the discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:46:50 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

Sounds like a textbook strawman to me mate.

Use the AR thread.

Warning for low content post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:49:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

Sounds like a textbook strawman to me mate.

Use the AR thread.

Warning for low content post.

You are calling out totallackey for low content?   Are you sure you aren't misreading what was said.   He raised a valid point,  admittedly he was wrong about what BHS was saying, but that doesn't qualify as low content.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:51:52 PM
I agree, purposely trying to shift the focus of the debate from the physics of the impact, crash, subsequent fires and demolitions / collapse to "holographic planes" reeks of controlled opposition and shillary.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sadly this is becoming more and more obvious...There is something up with this "guy"....


Rayzor....Who fucking cares what I muse about thinking out loud. I have my thoughts..But I clearly state they are just that....MY THOUGHTS...I have continued to state I don't want to talk about them because I can't prove them without a shadow of doubt.

As for the hollow gram stuff...Read what I wrote..I simply said I am at least putting it on the table again...But I know nothing about it, the capabilities etc... It's something I am not going to waste much time in, but it is a thought exercise. My long-standing THEORY has not changed that I already stated.

However, as I keep saying, these are just educated musings of mine...I don't want to discuss them because they are irrelevant to the collapse. YOU are the one that keeps going to them, because you cannot provide and answer for any fact I present.

Well unless it says "Nuh uh", "la la la", "you're crazy", "you're stupid","the official story says so" the list goes on...

However, these dont count...Sorry.


Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:52:22 PM
Personally I believe aircraft did hit the buildings, I think they were drone driven and packed with explosives to give us a Hollywood plane crash. I think the witnesses were correct in saying planes hit the buildings.

But this is just my personal speculation, please, let's talk about the physics of the total progressive collapse hypothesis, BHS has presented some compelling points, why not pick one and try to debunk it.


Edit.

It is a weak strawman to try to shift the debate to speculation if there were actually planes or not. I would agree with you that the evidence of planes crashing into the buildings far outweighs any other evidence I have seen, CGI wings etc.

So dishonest, Rayzor Ni Chan.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:56:53 PM
7 post in between while I sent that...All about my theory...

Anyone want to quote on page one where I said i don't want to talk about my theories or anyone else...Just the known facts or shall I.

Rayzor shut the hell up about my theories...They don't matter...You...Only you...are the one who keeps bringing them up as a diversion tactic....

Now teach me...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:59:09 PM
My starting position, is just the mechanics alone make it a conspiracy...Let alone all the back end issues of the who, what, why, how etc..

The official story is impossible in the real world...Just once, but 3 times (which one building not even being stuck) is something not even Harry's wand could do. Though " vaporized" is their abracadabra, it doesn't mean it's true. Does the magician truly cut the woman in half?

The catalyst, metallurgical values, rigidity, CG, total material recovered, time lapse, and a 1000 other things are impossible just with the buildings fall alone.

Then comes all the others keys such as back ground, finances, filmography and all the other what not to add more to the lie.

There is literally nothing that is not a lie in the official report except 3 buildings fell....But even that is a lie, because they left out building 7 conveniently.

There is a few opening arguments...The subject is huge though so you have to narrow down some areas sugar tits.

First page sweetie  :-* :-*.

Edit.

Read again.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
I agree, purposely trying to shift the focus of the debate from the physics of the impact, crash, subsequent fires and demolitions / collapse to "holographic planes" reeks of controlled opposition and shillary.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sadly this is becoming more and more obvious...There is something up with this "guy"....


Rayzor....Who fucking cares what I muse about thinking out loud. I have my thoughts..But I clearly state they are just that....MY THOUGHTS...I have continued to state I don't want to talk about them because I can't prove them without a shadow of doubt.

As for the hollow gram stuff...Read what I wrote..I simply said I am at least putting it on the table again...But I know nothing about it, the capabilities etc... It's something I am not going to waste much time in, but it is a thought exercise. My long-standing THEORY has not changed that I already stated.

However, as I keep saying, these are just educated musings of mine...I don't want to discuss them because they are irrelevant to the collapse. YOU are the one that keeps going to them, because you cannot provide and answer for any fact I present.

Well unless it says "Nuh uh", "la la la", "you're crazy", "you're stupid","the official story says so" the list goes on...

However, these dont count...Sorry.


Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears

Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept? 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:09:38 PM
He is truly a broken man, he will continue lashing out at whoever comes near, like an wild animal licking its wounds.

Pathetic.

Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:20:55 PM
He is truly a broken man, he will continue lashing out at whoever comes near, like an wild animal licking its wounds.

Pathetic.

Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

I am thinking I might not get an answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:22:00 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

Already answered several times,  you can't ask a question that invites a choice between two incorrect/impossible alternatives.     

I'm staggered that you raised it again.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Now just so that I am 100% clear on what you are implying by asking that question.

You are implying that no planes hit either WTC1 or WTC2,  is that what you believe? 

I have to be certain,  I wouldn't want disputeone to jump up and down shouting strawman and accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments.

Please state as clearly as possible,   do you or do you not believe that planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:28:51 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

So,  you didn't actually answer my question,  what evidence will you accept?    If it's not on the list feel free to add to it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:33:15 PM
Leave it. It's over.

If anyone wants to know what happened in this thread it is all here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:33:35 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

Already answered several times,  you can't ask a question that invites a choice between two incorrect/impossible alternatives.     

I'm staggered that you raised it again.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Now just so that I am 100% clear on what you are implying by asking that question.

You are implying that no planes hit either WTC1 or WTC2,  is that what you believe? 

I have to be certain,  I wouldn't want disputeone to jump up and down shouting strawman and accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments.

Please state as clearly as possible,   do you or do you not believe that planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

No more diversion....

Answer the question...

Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears

That is all I want from you....

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:43:01 PM
From several pages back.  FYI  My answer to your question hasn't changed.


You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:46:52 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

Already answered several times,  you can't ask a question that invites a choice between two incorrect/impossible alternatives.     

I'm staggered that you raised it again.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Now just so that I am 100% clear on what you are implying by asking that question.

You are implying that no planes hit either WTC1 or WTC2,  is that what you believe? 

I have to be certain,  I wouldn't want disputeone to jump up and down shouting strawman and accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments.

Please state as clearly as possible,   do you or do you not believe that planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

No more diversion....

Answer the question...

Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears

That is all I want from you....

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION

I did many times,  now could you answer my question,  do you or do you not believe no planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:54:46 PM
Leave it. It's over.

If anyone wants to know what happened in this thread it is all here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0


Nope,  It's just beginning,  after all we have only debunked 2% of what BHS believes.  His figure not mine.

Incidentally,  why would you bother posting a link to the same thread  you just posted in,  that's somewhat redundant.    Also I've seen you do it before,  so now I'm curious as to what you think that achieves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:54:56 PM
Your better than dancing for him Bhs, everyone can see it.

He is scared people will read the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:59:23 PM
Your better than dancing for him Bhs, everyone can see it.

He is scared people will read the thread.

Stop looking for examples of misrepresentation.  We just found one.  ROTFL

Anyway,  cool your jets for a while,  I've got projects calling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 06:05:22 PM
Please explain, in your own words, how I used "misrepresentation" there.

It would be the only honest answer you have tried to give.

Except, "Nuh uh, muh, muh, holographic planes."

It's all here, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 06:41:51 PM
Leave it. It's over.

If anyone wants to know what happened in this thread it is all here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0


Nope,  It's just beginning,  after all we have only debunked 2% of what BHS believes.  His figure not mine.

Incidentally,  why would you bother posting a link to the same thread  you just posted in,  that's somewhat redundant.    Also I've seen you do it before,  so now I'm curious as to what you think that achieves.

Pathetic as always...You haven't countered one single thing I have said with ANYTHING. You must be a liberal with your vision of "winning"... Did you play for the teams where "no one kept score and everyone is a winner?"...

By the way......Who is this "WE"???
Sounds suspicious...

Anyways.....Answer my question....Don't care what was said...New slate..

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
Rayzor you are pathetic. I'll say it for you. No planes hit the towers, it was cgi effects. In one of the videos the planes' nosecone crashes all the way through the building and comes out the other side. It was the operators making a mistake with doing cgi, live on the air. How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.
 If it was just rayzor on here I would even waste my time typing. I am really posting for the benefit of others. Rayzor will never believe, he either can't or is paid not to. Pitiful.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:29:17 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.

Destroyed by hoppy.

R.I.P Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:41:56 PM

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.

The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:47:54 PM

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.

The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

We are getting somewhere, very good, it is impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

Now, how do you explain the official pictures and videos showing exactly this?

Take your time.

Vitriol aside we're making progress.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:48:18 PM
It's all here, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

So,  why do you keep posting links to the very thread you are posting in,  are you aware that it makes you look retarded.    Oh wait.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:50:25 PM

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.

The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

We are getting somewhere, very good, it is impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

Now, how do you explain the official pictures and videos showing exactly this?

Take your time.

Vitriol aside we're making progress.

Oh, so now you're a no planer as well,  why do you keep changing sides?

There are no official pictures and videos that show a plane passing through the building and not leaving a mark.  We already established that earlier.  Try to keep up please.


You are aware that the rest of the 911 truther movement wishes the "no plane theorists" would go away because they make the genuine tin foil hat brigade look bad?




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 09:52:54 PM
The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

This is your answer?? Marvelous...

So now we have a problem...That is what we saw on their video evidence...

So you are saying your men has presented an impossibility in your words...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:53:43 PM

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!

No no no rayzor...No twista word here...I am gonna get an answer from you before the end of this thread...Just one..

You didn't answer my question before fyi...You just said "looks real to me" then showed a video of the "first plane" (by the way, if you want to believe some guy was recording city employees doing remedial tasks first thing in the morning, then suddenly, perfectly aligned with the WTC he focuses right on the towers...Waits...Then Boom the plane hits...I have some beach property in Oklahoma for you...Prime view) Also, fyi, that was not the sound of fan jet engines (experience, not google)...Not to mention, the mystery engines were decelerating...And that alone is impossible from the pitch and trim of the visual we saw. Just to begin with, the engines would almost need to be 100 percent to just have a chance of keeping that boat stable in the air at that altitude and supposed speed (which isn't possible anyways).. Actually..I am digressing, just this video alone I could run on for pages about.

Back to the point

Describe how this is possible.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Or this

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

Or this



I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:04:51 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?

And really....Just look at the still shots of the planes passing inside the building, even the wing of one preemptively vanished...So dumb. Independence day had much more convincing scenes.

All done with planes that couldn't even do the job...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:10:57 PM
[Describe how this is possible.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Where are the next few frames,  you need to look at those and see if there is  still no mark,  that video frame is part way through the impact into the building,  from that angle the plane obscures the impact area.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

Same again  part way through the impact,  and in any case you can actually see the impact on the external aluminium cladding and window frames,  where the left hand wing has already sliced into the structure.
Seeing the whole sequence would make it much clearer.



Even on this low resolution video you can see the outline of the impact clearly on the building.   But there are better resolution pictures than this.

So where is the video showing a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark?   I'd like to see it.



Quote from: BHS

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

Actually I can,  how good is your quantum mechanics?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:16:31 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?


I have the same question,  what is cluesforum?  got a link?   There are so many 911 truther forums and sites, it's hard to know which ones are serious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:22:22 PM
I don't care to go off on hypothetical math, no distractions about quantum mechanics.

There is no impact area anywhere on those pictures...And the plane wing is just "gone"...No where to be found.




Here is the video scepti posted...In the first few minutes you will see both videos in slow motion to see every frame.

(Videos where those freeze frames came from)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 10:25:31 PM
It's controlled opposition, Rayzor, imo, like what you have been trying to do here, you say for example.

Quote from: any reasonable person
The fall acceleration of building 7, in particular, doesn't quite fit the data we were given, the fact it took seven years to release the model and sixteen years later haven't released the collapse data because of "public safety" is concerning.

Then you get a lot of.

Quote from: Rayzor
HOLOGRAPHIC PLANES HURR DURR

Stop shitting up this thread.

Sorry Bhs I am throwing him a rope.

Carry on digging Rayzor, go, my son.

Quantum Physics does not apply to 9/11, you disingenuous ____.

If a particles wave length is longer than the material it is passing through, then there is the possibility of it passing through without "touching it" due to the uncertainty principal and the wave function of the particle.

I like QM, first correct thing you have said. However it is irrelevant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:29:38 PM
I don't care to go off on hypothetical math, no distractions about quantum mechanics.

There is no impact area anywhere on those pictures...And the plane wing is just "gone"...No where to be found.




Here is the video scepti posted...In the first few minutes you will see both videos in slow motion to see every frame.

(Videos where those freeze frames came from)

Ok,  I watched the first few minutes,  I'll watch the rest later,  I saw nothing that would support the proposition that the planes weren't real,  certainly didn't see a plane pass through the building without leaving a mark.

Where is the video showing a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark, that you claimed exists?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:33:57 PM
It's controlled opposition, Rayzor, imo, like what you have been trying to do here, you say for example.

So you think I'm controlled opposition?   Really?   I suspect you don't know what the phrase means.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:35:12 PM

Quote from: Rayzor
HOLOGRAPHIC PLANES HURR DURR

Reported for false editing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:35:57 PM


Skip to middle....Do you know how many decibels a 60,000 lbf turbo fan engine makes at full bore? Sure you don't...But it is multiples of loud as fuck...Loud enough to make you sick without ear protection, even hundreds of feet away (have seen it)...

Did you hear anything?? I didn't...

Skip to half in video
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:44:19 PM


Skip to middle....Do you know how many decibels a 60,000 lbf turbo fan engine makes at full bore? Sure you don't...But it is multiples of loud as fuck...Loud enough to make you sick without ear protection, even hundreds of feet away (have seen it)...

Did you hear anything?? I didn't...

Skip to half in video

Eight blocks away,  probably filmed from inside a room,  you don't hear any noise from impact either,  and that's heard clearly in other video's   so what's your point?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 10:54:14 PM
Rayzor your position is untenable, this is why no one will help you support it.

You are the one who sounds like a "conspiracy theorist".

Toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 11:01:16 PM
Again... Decibels....Even if it was from inside you would have heard the plane loud and clear at 8 blocks as you state...not to mention, that building where the video was shot would have been in the supposed flight path....You would have heard it for some time. Again, your ignorance on any of the technical aspects shines.

So you accept planes that could never even complete this flight can melt uniformly inside the building's without leaving a mark correct?

Fine...Let's take your fairy tale...So where the planes it....The first was where it was 60 feet to the central core, the second 35 feet to the central core. One plane was going considerably faster than the other. Yet the video of both show the exact same entry angle, effect and speed.

This is OK to you?

The second plane hit where it is 35 feet to the central core....The plane is 159 feet long...So there would be over a 100 feet left before it hit the core...Yet we saw no slowing of speed, buckling or fricion. Not even a mark...

This is OK with you?

(I am ignoring these planes could not even exist here...But we will leave that alone for the moment)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 11:09:17 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.

Don't forget hoppy...It didn't just pass through the outside vertical steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete both sides, the inside horizontal steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete of multiple floors both sides, all the steel horizontal supports with reinforced concrete both sides, it passed through multiple inches think steel beams on both sides in the central core.

Not only that...These beams where under compression of the building, so that increases the difficulty to penetrate by multitudes...In karate, when you are holding a board for someone to break it, watch how their arms fly out when it's broken. It's a little easier to break...Simple physics..

Now multiply that by 1000s of times...


Long story short...That is some magic fucking fiberglass.


I am sure Rayzor is OK with this too....They said so...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 11:15:51 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.

Don't forget hoppy...It didn't just pass through the outside vertical steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete both sides, the inside horizontal steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete of multiple floors both sides, all the steel horizontal supports with reinforced concrete both sides, it passed through multiple inches think steel beams on both sides in the central core.

Not only that...These beams where under compression of the building, so that increases the difficulty to penetrate by multitudes.

I am sure Rayzor is OK with this too....They said so...

I brought this up also.

Hey Rayzor, channel 10 said the sky is red, no, no need to look up. You heard it on channel 10. Now, go forth, my son, spread the word of the red sky to those dastardly "conspiracy theorists."

Remember, whatever you do, don't look up, trusssssssst iiiinnnnnn mmmeeeeeeee.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2017, 11:40:25 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?


I have the same question,  what is cluesforum?  got a link?   There are so many 911 truther forums and sites, it's hard to know which ones are serious.

One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:47:48 PM
Again... Decibels....Even if it was from inside you would have heard the plane loud and clear at 8 blocks as you state...not to mention, that building where the video was shot would have been in the supposed flight path....You would have heard it for some time. Again, your ignorance on any of the technical aspects shines.

So you accept planes that could never even complete this flight can melt uniformly inside the building's without leaving a mark correct?

Fine...Let's take your fairy tale...So where the planes it....The first was where it was 60 feet to the central core, the second 35 feet to the central core. One plane was going considerably faster than the other. Yet the video of both show the exact same entry angle, effect and speed.

This is OK to you?

The second plane hit where it is 35 feet to the central core....The plane is 159 feet long...So there would be over a 100 feet left before it hit the core...Yet we saw no slowing of speed, buckling or fricion. Not even a mark...

This is OK with you?

(I am ignoring these planes could not even exist here...But we will leave that alone for the moment)

You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:55:37 PM

I brought this up also.

Hey Rayzor, channel 10 said the sky is red, no, no need to look up. You heard it on channel 10. Now, go forth, my son, spread the word of the red sky to those dastardly "conspiracy theorists."

Remember, whatever you do, don't look up, trusssssssst iiiinnnnnn mmmeeeeeeee.

Snap out of it,  you are a jibbering mess.   Take a few deep breaths and try to relax. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 11:56:24 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?


I have the same question,  what is cluesforum?  got a link?   There are so many 911 truther forums and sites, it's hard to know which ones are serious.

One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

Wow ....Sounds like a retarded group think echo chamber. 

What is their group consensus on 9/11?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:06:22 AM

One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I had a look,   shuddered at some things being quoted as gospel,  and  walked away backwards, making the sign of the cross.   You called it.

It seems you get cudos in that culture to be the first to jump on a soapbox and shout "false flag"  no matter what the event happens to be.  Boston Marathon,  Sandy Hook,  all clever fakes according to these self proclaimed experts,  and on it goes.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 12:14:01 AM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.

Lol....What points...Very straight forward what I said..

You can say you are right...Or I have no idea how to understand the information presented. Would prefer the former but either works.

This always happens when I present specifics...You fade off..

Did when I presented how and why the towers should have collapsed a certain way, even allowing for the magic needed to complete it.

Did when I presented specifics of how and why the plane would act a certain why in a Collision.

Did when I presented the how and why these planes could not even be where they were at that speed and trim.

And the list goes on...I could only imagine what would happen if I actually started to get deeply detailed.

The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:22:54 AM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.
The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.

Ok,  no, I didn't see that,  so at what timestamp  in the scepti's video is the example you are referring to.

Also, since you earlier stated that this is the first time you've ever seen the video sceptimatic posted.  That means  there must be some other video you've seen prior to scepti's  what was the other video evidence?  The one where you spend days going frame by frame,   and it  convinced you that it showed the plane flying through the building without leaving a mark.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:23:00 AM
What is their group consensus on 9/11?

They don't consider evidence, argue from incredulity and confirmation bias.

Sounds familiar right?

Their "undebunkable sepclues" thread neglects to mention the physics defying fall acceleration of building 7, the fuel burn temperature and duration violating thermodynamics or the way the planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and exiting the building.

Nuff said.

They start right with holographic planes.
Like you did, Rayzor. I wonder why?

@Bhs that time Papa called me out for being a "shill" in this issue. This is why I don't like discussing if there were planes or drones or missiles.

Guys just grab that holographic plane shit and hold onto it like a drowning man grabbing his rescuer and drowning both of them together.

We don't need it.

To recap.

Physics violation, planes entering then exiting the building with the same nose cone shape. Bhs has extensively demonstrated that rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, and scissors beat paper. Hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression  beats a mainly fibreglass nose cone.

Thermodynamics violation from the burn intensity and duration after the crashes. You yourself showed a three day old piece of glowing steel.

Physics violation when the buildings fell at free fall expecially building 7 at gravitational acceleration.

Rayzor, I would gladly die to have the truth on this issue come out, whatever it may be. I am sure it is obvious but this is something I feel very strongly about.

I have only argued with integrity and logic until you threw it out the window.

I don't know why you insist on holding an untenable position.

I gave you a way out just by saying what happened to building 7 was "suspicious" but you seem to think the official story is airtight, yet you have struggled defending it.

All I want from you is integrity, if you cannot do that, onebigmonkey supplied you a link where they will welcome you with open arms.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:31:56 AM
One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I think the conspiracy theory that I found the most disturbing was the vicsim theory.  No one died in the WTC attacks,  all the witnesses were actors, the tv networks were all in on it. 

They proudly claim,  that there has been no official denial of their claims,  a certain proof of the correctness of the theory.  I thought a few around here were a bit off the planet,  and flat earth theory was at the extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum,  but nope,  there are worse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:33:41 AM
One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I think the conspiracy theory that I found the most disturbing was the vicsim theory.  No one died in the WTC attacks,  all the witnesses were actors, the tv networks were all in on it. 

They proudly claim,  that there has been no official denial of their claims,  a certain proof of the correctness of the theory.  I thought a few around here were a bit off the planet,  and flat earth theory was at the extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum,  but nope,  there are worse.

Disgusting strawman.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:35:38 AM
From page twelve, please address.

What is their group consensus on 9/11?

They don't consider evidence, argue from incredulity and confirmation bias.

Sounds familiar right?

Their "undebunkable sepclues" thread neglects to mention the physics defying fall acceleration of building 7, the fuel burn temperature and duration violating thermodynamics or the way the planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and exiting the building.

Nuff said.

They start right with holographic planes.
Like you did, Rayzor. I wonder why?

@Bhs that time Papa called me out for being a "shill" in this issue. This is why I don't like discussing if there were planes or drones or missiles.

Guys just grab that holographic plane shit and hold onto it like a drowning man grabbing his rescuer and drowning both of them together.

We don't need it.

To recap.

Physics violation, planes entering then exiting the building with the same nose cone shape. Bhs has extensively demonstrated that rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, and scissors beat paper. Hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression  beats a mainly fibreglass nose cone.

Thermodynamics violation from the burn intensity and duration after the crashes. You yourself showed a three day old piece of glowing steel.

Physics violation when the buildings fell at free fall expecially building 7 at gravitational acceleration.

Rayzor, I would gladly die to have the truth on this issue come out, whatever it may be. I am sure it is obvious but this is something I feel very strongly about.

I have only argued with integrity and logic until you threw it out the window.

I don't know why you insist on holding an untenable position.

I gave you a way out just by saying what happened to building 7 was "suspicious" but you seem to think the official story is airtight, yet you have struggled defending it.

All I want from you is integrity, if you cannot do that, onebigmonkey supplied you a link where they will welcome you with open arms.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:36:59 AM

They start right with holographic planes.
Like you did, Rayzor. I wonder why?


Once again I call your bluff, show me where I "started right with holographic planes".

And that reminds me you still owe me an apology from the last time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:38:46 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:39:53 AM
One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I think the conspiracy theory that I found the most disturbing was the vicsim theory.  No one died in the WTC attacks,  all the witnesses were actors, the tv networks were all in on it. 

They proudly claim,  that there has been no official denial of their claims,  a certain proof of the correctness of the theory.  I thought a few around here were a bit off the planet,  and flat earth theory was at the extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum,  but nope,  there are worse.

Disgusting strawman.

How is that a strawman?   You still don't actually know what a strawman argument is do you?    The only way that could possible be a strawman is if you were a vicsim theorist.

If you've nothiing to add to the debate,  butt out and stop interrupting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:43:13 AM
Rayzor your position is untenable, you have consistently refused to engage in debate and have been dishonest since your third post.

You disgust me.

I'm not sure if this is some ridiculous sense of "pride" or something more sinister. I will just assume that 100% of your self esteem comes from picking on flat earthers.

Sad.

The thread is right here if anyone wants to read it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:43:59 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

If you've actually got a point,  you need to say it a bit more clearly.   I'm usually not too bad on gibberish,  but your dialect is a strange one.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:46:55 AM
Rayzor your position is untenable, you have consistently refused to engage in debate and have been dishonest since your third post.

You disgust me.

I'm not sure if this is some ridiculous sense of "pride" or something more sinister. I will just assume that 100% of your self esteem comes from picking on flat earthers.

Sad.

The thread is right here if anyone wants to read it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

When will you realise that I'll always try to respond in kind,  ask a polite intelligent question and you'll get answer in kind,  and no, reposting BHS doesn't count.

I now know why you link to the same thread as you posted in.  Took a while to realise how stupid you really were,  but now it's obvious.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:49:17 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

If you've actually got a point,  you need to say it a bit more clearly.   I'm usually not too bad on gibberish,  but your dialect is a strange one.

Straight away, you refuse to debate technical issues, instead you attempt some sick play to equate 9/11 truthers with flat earthers.

Instead of making a point you try to debase the people debating you and try to shift the issue from physics violations in the official story to "hurr durr 9/11 truthers are flat earthers hurr durr."

You make me physically sick, I can't imagine how it must feel for you to look in the mirror.

Clear enough?

Cause you don't want people to read it, do you? That's the difference between us. I want the truth, you want to believe what you want to believe.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0


Edit, No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:56:32 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

If you've actually got a point,  you need to say it a bit more clearly.   I'm usually not too bad on gibberish,  but your dialect is a strange one.

Straight away, you refuse to debate technical issues, instead you attempt some sick play to equate 9/11 truthers with flat earthers.

Instead of making a point you try to debase the people debating you and try to shift the issue from physics violations in the official story to "hurr durr 9/11 truthers are flat earthers hurr durr."

You make me physically sick, I can't imagine how it must feel for you to look in the mirror.

Clear enough?

Cause you don't want people to read it, do you? That's the difference between us. I want the truth, you want to believe what you want to believe.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

If you ever actually made a point I would take the time to address it, instead you are off in a little disconnected fantasy world. 

I asked you what was your point,  and asked for it to be stated more clearly,  since it wasn't obvious what you were saying.   

And this is your response, claiming I equate 911 truthers with flat earthers when I said no such thing.  It's a repeating theme with you,  not knowing what words mean, and lack of  ability to understand context and follow a train of thought.

Anything else I can help you with?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 12:58:47 AM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.
The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.

Ok,  no, I didn't see that,  so at what timestamp  in the scepti's video is the example you are referring to.

Also, since you earlier stated that this is the first time you've ever seen the video sceptimatic posted.  That means  there must be some other video you've seen prior to scepti's  what was the other video evidence?  The one where you spend days going frame by frame,   and it  convinced you that it showed the plane flying through the building without leaving a mark.

There is plenty of video I can post up...I am sure it is on YouTube as well, most video evidence is there now which is nice. A luxury I didn't have when this started. All my files are on different hard drives, I don't debate this on the internet, but in real life conferences....Well, not much anymore.

I have ran through them on high end videography equipment more times than I can count..The companies I worked with on that I am grateful to for their assistance and advice.

I can post some up if I think they will make a difference to you...Though I don't think it will.

Again...Still won't answer direct questions, I think I am giving up on you ..Sorry. Tired of wasting my time typing to explain something or present something and you will never address it directly.

Perhaps that site would be a good home for you...


They don't consider evidence, argue from incredulity and confirmation bias.

Sounds familiar right?

Yeah it does unfortunately...

Quote
Their "undebunkable sepclues" thread neglects to mention the physics defying fall acceleration of building 7, the fuel burn temperature and duration violating thermodynamics or the way the planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and exiting the building.

Nuff said.

Gotcha.... So just a heard of emu running in circles...

Quote
@Bhs that time Papa called me out for being a "shill" in this issue. This is why I don't like discussing if there were planes or drones or missiles.

Guys just grab that holographic plane shit and hold onto it like a drowning man grabbing his rescuer and drowning both of them together.

We don't need it.

Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Quote
Rayzor, I would gladly die to have the truth on this issue come out, whatever it may be. I am sure it is obvious but this is something I feel very strongly about.

100 percent agreed...Without a second thought. If I knew it would be released to the masses...Done.

I can't even begin to list the personal and sacrifice put towards that. There was even one point for months I used my entire business for this, took no projects in. Massive undertaking and expense. Plus weird shit started to happen at the end...Including an unexpected audit.... Coincidence?? A case could be made for either view.

Sucks...All for nothing so far...Sucks big time. Now so much time is passing new generations are coming in and no one gives a shit anymore. Just as they planned...This thing hits 20-25 years....We are finished.

Quote
I have only argued with integrity and logic until you threw it out the window.

I don't know why you insist on holding an untenable position.

I gave you a way out just by saying what happened to building 7 was "suspicious" but you seem to think the official story is airtight, yet you have struggled defending it.

All I want from you is integrity, if you cannot do that, onebigmonkey supplied you a link where they will welcome you with open arms.

Yeah...Perhaps he should go there. Sounds like a good home for him.


Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

And of course out of all the posts he ignores is this one too.....

Smdh... ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:01:44 AM
No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.

It's clear throwing shit is all you can do, if people want information on 9/11 please read the thread with an open mind considering all evidence presented and all points made. Please make up your own mind.

I'm done here, the last 7 pages has been Rayzor in damage control, I'm done sorry this is upsetting me now.

I just can't belive how dishonest and immature he is being...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:04:54 AM
No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.

It's clear throwing shit is all you can do, if people want information on 9/11 please read the thread with an open mind considering all evidence presented and all points made. Please make up your own mind.

I'm done here, the last 7 pages has been Rayzor in damage control, I'm done sorry this is upsetting me now.

I just can't belive how dishonest and immature he is being...

Man....I get it..Believe me...You should know i do.

Hell I lost a fucking car once to someone breaking out a window and setting it on fire at a conference over this.

He just isn't worth it..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:08:36 AM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.
The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.

Ok,  no, I didn't see that,  so at what timestamp  in the scepti's video is the example you are referring to.

Also, since you earlier stated that this is the first time you've ever seen the video sceptimatic posted.  That means  there must be some other video you've seen prior to scepti's  what was the other video evidence?  The one where you spend days going frame by frame,   and it  convinced you that it showed the plane flying through the building without leaving a mark.

There is plenty of video I can post up...I am sure it is on YouTube as well, most video evidence is there now which is nice. A luxury I didn't have when this started. All my files are on different hard drives, I don't debate this on the internet, but in real life conferences....Well, not much anymore.

I have ran through them on high end videography equipment more times than I can count..The companies I worked with on that I am grateful to for their assistance and advice.


One thing at a time,  you claimed you had video evidence of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark,  and repeatedly badgered me for an answer as to how that could be so, and even after I pointed out the logical fallacy embodied in the question you persisted,  so I eventually told you what you wanted to hear and said it was impossible.

Now you tell me you can't show the evidence?    I only ask for you to tell me the timestamp in the video scepti posted which demonstrated your claim.

If you recant your claim, we can move on,  or if you can prove your claim we can progress in a different direction,  the onus is on you as to which direction we go from here.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 01:16:55 AM
2:17 seconds onwards should be enough to tell anyone that the planes are simply made for TV.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:17:04 AM
No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.

It's clear throwing shit is all you can do, if people want information on 9/11 please read the thread with an open mind considering all evidence presented and all points made. Please make up your own mind.

I'm done here, the last 7 pages has been Rayzor in damage control, I'm done sorry this is upsetting me now.

I just can't belive how dishonest and immature he is being...

I could ask you to show me where you think I've been dishonest.    But I know you can't
As far a honesty goes,  I could call you out on pretending to be a flat earther and then flip flopping,  or suddenly becoming a "no-planer"  half way through this thread.

So please go away and don't come back unless you have something of substance to contribute.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:17:57 AM
Sorry...No more double talk with no direct answers...

I didn't say I can't, I said it isn't worth it on your case. I would have to upload to a video hosting, then link to here. If you were looking for truth I would. You won't even answer a single question from me with an actual response.

Either you are to dense, unwilling, or for a long shot paid not provide an answer.

You have been given 13 pages as a chance...That is enough.

You are a prime candidate for legba's sock-puppet comment.

And don't say...Show me blah blah...There was at least 30 times...And I am being very generous. Every person here has said the same thing...Answer a fucking question.

Toodle-pip

2:17 seconds onwards should be enough to tell anyone that the planes are simply made for TV.




Thanks scepti
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:18:30 AM
Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Not at all, I wasn't having a go.

The result of this debate is obvious. I think we can leave it here, no point continuing in this vein.

Remember how he said he had enough when you bumped it up to 2.1%, I'll find the quote if you like. Now he's back talking about holographic planes and that we are bad people cause other people died that day and we shouldn't question the official story.

In damage control, trying to steer the debate anywhere except the mechanics of the impact, loss of structural integrity due to heat and subsequent demolition / collapse.

I don't blame him.

I was agitated from Rayzors total lack of integrity and decency my post was probably more aggressive than I intended.

Quote
And don't say...Show me blah blah...There was at least 30 times...And I am being very generous. Every person here has said the same thing...Answer a fucking question.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:23:13 AM
2:17 seconds onwards should be enough to tell anyone that the planes are simply made for TV.

Thanks scepti,  that's the next topic as to the physics of the impact,  but we need to get past the claim about not leaving a mark first.

Just one comment however,  the woman who say the wing tips couldn't slice through steel beams obviously didn't know the outer sections you can see damaged by the wing tips is not actually steel but just light aluminium cladding, and window frames.

I'm still hoping BHS can find that video.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:24:58 AM
Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Not at all, I wasn't having a go.

The result of this debate is obvious. I think we can leave it here, no point continuing in this vein.

Remember how he said he had enough when you bumped it up to 2.1%, I'll find the quote if you like. Now he's back talking about holographic planes and that we are bad people cause other people died that day and we shouldn't question the official story.

In damage control, trying to steer the debate anywhere except the mechanics of the impact, loss of structural integrity due to heat and subsequent demolition / collapse.

I don't blame him.

I was agitated from Rayzors total lack of integrity and decency my post was probably more aggressive than I intended.

Oh I could give a fuck about him...It was your mental state I didn't want effected by him...Say whatever the hell you would like. It is obvious what he is unfortunately...I have no sympathy.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Not at all, I wasn't having a go.

The result of this debate is obvious. I think we can leave it here, no point continuing in this vein.

Remember how he said he had enough when you bumped it up to 2.1%, I'll find the quote if you like. Now he's back talking about holographic planes and that we are bad people cause other people died that day and we shouldn't question the official story.

In damage control, trying to steer the debate anywhere except the mechanics of the impact, loss of structural integrity due to heat and subsequent demolition / collapse.

I don't blame him.

I was agitated from Rayzors total lack of integrity and decency my post was probably more aggressive than I intended.

Oh I could give a fuck about him...It was your mental state I didn't want effected by him...Say whatever the hell you would like. It is obvious what he is unfortunately...I have no sympathy.

If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:40:30 AM
If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:43:41 AM
If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice

Agreed, such a disgusting, foul attempt of twisting words to attack his debate partner instead of his position.

What, didn't you do this in high school / uni Rayzor?

I did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:44:45 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.

Yes,  you really should re-read what's been said and by who,  you will be surprised.    The aim of this discussion was not victory  ( although it seems it was your aim)  but to discover something about the truth of 911,  please check what I called this thread when I started it.   It's called  "911 What is the truth?"

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

We are unfortunately no closer to the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:50:53 AM
Goodbye Rayzor, I got some 23 yo qt to catch up with who wants me to take her for a ride on my bike to the pub. Better things to do.



I'll say it again.





Was it worth your soul?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:53:20 AM
If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice

In case you hadn't figured it out yet,  I try to respond in kind,  if you want a slanging match,  I'll oblige,  If you want a civilized discussion,  you can stop the childish personal attacks.

I'll give you a pass this once.   You either have a case or you don't,  your case hinges on there being no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,  that question must be answered before you can talk about the impact. 

My asking you the question is not ipso facto evasion,  your refusal to answer is by definition evasion.  So try and get it right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:54:00 AM
Goodbye Rayzor, I got some 23 yo qt to catch up with who wants me to take her for a ride on my bike to the pub. Better things to do.



I'll say it again.





Was it worth your soul?

Good bye.   Don't forget your dictionary.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
You weasel.

Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.



Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:03:46 AM
You weasel.

Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.


Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.

The logical fallacy embedded in that statement is so glaring I wouldn't have thought it needed saying,  but it seems it does,

How can there be a nose cone if there is no plane?    There's another related question,  How come the nose cone survived?  But that implies there is a plane to begin with.  Two sides of the same coin,

If you are a "No Planer"  you can't logically ask the question how did the nose cone survive.   You could however ask was it the nose cone off something else? 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 02:04:42 AM

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

I am putting this on hold for a minute...

If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice

In case you hadn't figured it out yet,  I try to respond in kind,  if you want a slanging match,  I'll oblige,  If you want a civilized discussion,  you can stop the childish personal attacks.

I'll give you a pass this once.   You either have a case or you don't,  your case hinges on there being no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,  that question must be answered before you can talk about the impact. 

My asking you the question is not ipso facto evasion,  your refusal to answer is by definition evasion.  So try and get it right.


Again....A lie from rayzor...You can't stop can you...I have allowed for your plane theory, and still explained the impossibility. I could care less if there were planes or not. I can destroy this a 100 different ways even allowing for parts of the official story to be true..No matter for me...

Here is just a brief example you never addressed.

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Answers....Last chance.. direct answers in your own words...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 02:07:20 AM
You weasel.

Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.


Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.

The logical fallacy embedded in that statement is so glaring I wouldn't have thought it needed saying,  but it seems it does,

How can there be a nose cone if there is no plane?    There's another related question,  How come the nose cone survived?  But that implies there is a plane to begin with.  Two sides of the same coin,

If you are a "No Planer"  you can't logically ask the question how did the nose cone survive.   You could however ask was it the nose cone off something else?

I'm risking not getting laid for this.

Let's say I believe the official story and am just curious, how do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Answer the question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:13:05 AM



But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Answers....Last chance.. direct answers in your own words...

I did actually answer that, and pointed out that you got the collapse backwards,  at some point part way up the building several floors collapsed,  and the potential energy and momentum of the floors above the collapse point exceed the support of the floors below, as they collapse their momentum and potential energy of those floors is added to to total loading,  so the loading gets progressively greater as the collapse continues.

Your contention that as the collapse progressed mass was  removed from the upper area, making the bottom more robust is the reverse of what actually happened.

Harry Potter comments about magic wands didn't help your case either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:17:12 AM
I'm risking not getting laid for this.

In that case I'll answer you tomorrow.  You'll be in a better mood.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 02:24:31 AM
You weasel.

Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.


Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.

The logical fallacy embedded in that statement is so glaring I wouldn't have thought it needed saying,  but it seems it does,

How can there be a nose cone if there is no plane?    There's another related question,  How come the nose cone survived?  But that implies there is a plane to begin with.  Two sides of the same coin,

If you are a "No Planer"  you can't logically ask the question how did the nose cone survive.   You could however ask was it the nose cone off something else?

I'm risking not getting laid for this.

Let's say I believe the official story and am just curious, how do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Answer the question.

(https://s11.postimg.org/3nkra5vcj/images_48.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 02:46:30 AM
I did actually answer that, and pointed out that you got the collapse backwards,  at some point part way up the building several floors collapsed,  and the potential energy and momentum of the floors above the collapse point exceed the support of the floors below, as they collapse their momentum and potential energy of those floors is added to to total loading,  so the loading gets progressively greater as the collapse continues.

Your contention that as the collapse progressed mass was  removed from the upper area, making the bottom more robust is the reverse of what actually happened.

Harry Potter comments about magic wands didn't help your case either.

No...Reread what I wrote. I was stating what would happen in the real world if structural integrity was compromised. Read it again, I even put cool little pictures up.

Falling in the path of the most resistance is only in fairy tales. There is a reason people are paid millions of dollars to demo a scrapper..If it wasnt complex, it wouldn't almost be rocket science. We could just put charges on one floor and watch it fall.

So again...Reread that post...I was explaining reality in structural dynamics...I was not condoning what we saw on TV as accurate of a plane wreck.

I was explaining what you would see in a plane wreck...Understand?


And here is a bit of reality for you...



This is the real world.

Maybe a background in this is needed to understand?? I don't know.. maybe what is easy for me is hard for you? I am lost...

So will you please explain why we saw the laws of physics broken???
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:47:12 AM
(https://s11.postimg.org/3nkra5vcj/images_48.jpg)

WIlliam of Ockam  ( Occam if you prefer)  my patron saint.   

The nose cone didn't survive,  what ever it is on the video doesn't actually look like the fibreglass nose cone.  Might be just debris cloud.  There's no conclusive evidence supporting the contention that the nose cone survived to exit the opposite side.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:00:47 AM
No evidence, except thousands of official videos and photos. Something the same dimensions following the same path as the nose cone appeared right where you would expect it to appear if the wtc buildings were made of styrofoam.

Alright, that was actually the most honest answer you have given.

I just saw this on the news looks so real, now bow down with me as we pray to the NIST.



All hail the mighty NIST, decider of our laws of physics. Give us this lie, our daily lie, and forgive us our shillary, lead us not into truth but comfort.

Anist.

So will you please explain why we saw the laws of physics broken???

14 pages later, it's clear he doesn't have a year 9 level of physics understanding. That or he is scared to say too much.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:07:30 AM
I did actually answer that, and pointed out that you got the collapse backwards,  at some point part way up the building several floors collapsed,  and the potential energy and momentum of the floors above the collapse point exceed the support of the floors below, as they collapse their momentum and potential energy of those floors is added to to total loading,  so the loading gets progressively greater as the collapse continues.

Your contention that as the collapse progressed mass was  removed from the upper area, making the bottom more robust is the reverse of what actually happened.

Harry Potter comments about magic wands didn't help your case either.

No...Reread what I wrote. I was stating what would happen in the real world if structural integrity was compromised. Read it again, I even put cool little pictures up.

Falling in the path of the most resistance is only in fairy tales. There is a reason people are paid millions of dollars to demo a scrapper..If it wasnt complex, it wouldn't almost be rocket science. We could just put charges on one floor and watch it fall.

So again...Reread that post...I was explaining reality in structural dynamics...I was not condoning what we saw on TV as accurate of a plane wreck.

I was explaining what you would see in a plane wreck...Understand?


And here is a bit of reality for you...


This is the real world.

Maybe a background in this is needed to understand?? I don't know.. maybe what is easy for me is hard for you? I am lost...

So will you please explain why we saw the laws of physics broken???

You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:16:19 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:20:44 AM
On the topic of were the planes real or not,  the question why was no aircraft wreckage ever found?

The answer is it was. 

Part of fuselage from UA175 found under WTC5
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQ-TdRhtCBU/VQmQHmybgpI/AAAAAAAAAVs/5ShQ6vaXUwc/s1600/3.jpg)

Landing gear found on the corner of West and Rector streets.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-Oo8Pj7sAE/VQmTQVElFPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BuGgN8C1b4g/s1600/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg)

Piece of AA11 fuselage found near West and Cedar
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3vN74OwryI/VQmS-Z7iCGI/AAAAAAAAAWE/vzfWlUqM39E/s1600/plane%2Bwindow.jpg)

There are other bits and pieces.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:23:15 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.


Or option 4 he's looked at all the evidence and made up his own mind.

The nose out fallacy becomes obvious when you see it from multiple angles,   it's a debris cloud.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:29:07 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.



Thanks scepti.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:30:34 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.

Holly crap scepti...You know YouTube so much better than I...do you know how hard info was to get when before YouTube, then before it got big, that was when most of my research was going on..

That video was redonkulous...Let's leave out the fact we saw the plane go through it...That nonsensical bullshit.

Let's look at the ominous nature of the camera, right before it happens, move and zoom to the exact spot. Then when it doesn't look right, blank and return...I am a big motivation person, same way with the only video of the other "plane"....Why did the guy decide to focus on the exact point of impact.. as judge Judy says..If it doesn't make sense it isn't true.

What the fuck is wrong with people that fight for this?



Whenever you feel like sharing please don't hesitate, you know where to find this stuff.


Edit.....You really are ignorant on physics aren't you rayzor...When does a cloud debris every have perfect formed lines and size in a situation like that...It was clearly the nose of something that wasn't the plane stated or a CGI fuck up...

Shit with your mentally it could have been king Kong....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:31:48 AM
On the topic of were the planes real or not,  the question why was no aircraft wreckage ever found?

The answer is it was. 

Part of fuselage from UA175 found under WTC5
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQ-TdRhtCBU/VQmQHmybgpI/AAAAAAAAAVs/5ShQ6vaXUwc/s1600/3.jpg)

Landing gear found on the corner of West and Rector streets.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-Oo8Pj7sAE/VQmTQVElFPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BuGgN8C1b4g/s1600/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg)

Piece of AA11 fuselage found near West and Cedar
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3vN74OwryI/VQmS-Z7iCGI/AAAAAAAAAWE/vzfWlUqM39E/s1600/plane%2Bwindow.jpg)

There are other bits and pieces.
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:38:23 AM
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.

Well said...The problem is, they can't decide between vaporization or not.

Also, rayzor, since he is completely inept he has no idea how heave that landing gear really is.... It would not be just simply "laying there", you have have absolutely seen HOW it got there, where it came from, and where it stopped.

These people.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:41:49 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:41:58 AM
Edit.....You really are ignorant on physics aren't you rayzor...When does a cloud debris every have perfect formed lines and size in a situation like that...It was clearly the nose of something that wasn't the plane stated or a CGI fuck up...

Shit with your mentally it could have been king Kong....

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ipjBOOtuvuQ/U4e-e10f1tI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Jf8mttOVN1A/s1600/DualNoseOut02.gif)

I'll give you yet another pass on the insults.   In the interests of fostering an intelligent discussion of the facts,  keep it up and I'll respond in kind.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:45:40 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out

No you don't have sufficient information in that post.  And I've already explained you got the collapse mechanism backwards.  If you don't want to explain your theory, I can't force you,  but your reluctance to elaborate makes me wonder.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:47:20 AM
On the topic of were the planes real or not,  the question why was no aircraft wreckage ever found?

The answer is it was. 

Part of fuselage from UA175 found under WTC5
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQ-TdRhtCBU/VQmQHmybgpI/AAAAAAAAAVs/5ShQ6vaXUwc/s1600/3.jpg)

Landing gear found on the corner of West and Rector streets.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-Oo8Pj7sAE/VQmTQVElFPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BuGgN8C1b4g/s1600/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg)

Piece of AA11 fuselage found near West and Cedar
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3vN74OwryI/VQmS-Z7iCGI/AAAAAAAAAWE/vzfWlUqM39E/s1600/plane%2Bwindow.jpg)

There are other bits and pieces.
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

I am a fan of the buildings being prepped for impact with the aircraft being drone piloted and filled with explosives, this makes logical sense to me after we accept the controlled demolition.

Regardless the no planes theory is in no way critical to the controlled demolition hypothesis. Imo Rayzor is getting what he wants by pushing the no-planes theory which is mostly speculation mixed with the physical impossibility of what we saw and what we were told happened.

Over the controlled demolition which is demonstatable fact, NIST's models don't work, it's not a matter of opinon that the model looks nothing like reality, not releasing their data, to me, after watching that video, feels like being slapped in the face after being robbed.

Allow for a controlled demolition you can make a computer model which looks exactly like how building 7 fell.

Coincidence or Ockhams Razor?

Edit, typing too fast.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:51:33 AM
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.

Well said...The problem is, they can't decide between vaporization or not.

Also, rayzor, since he is completely inept he has no idea how heave that landing gear really is.... It would not be just simply "laying there", you have have absolutely seen HOW it got there, where it came from, and where it stopped.

These people.

Seems to be a lot of debris from something that didn't exist.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JC3qXVqTcYo/VQ0BjHmhCzI/AAAAAAAAAZM/TgNDk7_thJc/s1600/wtc_then_now_engine.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h81COqbMFRk/VQ0BemAfj4I/AAAAAAAAAYE/bAAm-MhVuZ4/s1600/jettire2blocksaway.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oCh4rH_2VlU/V2XPFM8mm7I/AAAAAAAAAqE/rXikplDjQh0aRtVCZPAZWaIXDg7qeW9TwCKgB/s640/Roll_13_05.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k6pVDBlB524/VQ0BcJxhNgI/AAAAAAAAAXc/SVjsGCZUW_c/s640/Roll_3_13.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6IviafUBBTE/V2XRZmU9SaI/AAAAAAAAAtM/h5WTaSdW8scbdI_ArkeErfd9qt5u23JSgCKgB/s640/Roll_3_09.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wj4gdnX47sU/VQ0BgZmsmcI/AAAAAAAAAYk/fphesIdGt_0/s640/plane%2Bseat%2Bcushion.jpg)



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:54:34 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out

No you don't have sufficient information in that post.  And I've already explained you got the collapse mechanism backwards.  If you don't want to explain your theory, I can't force you,  but your reluctance to elaborate makes me wonder.

I had plenty...If you had even basic knowledge of structural design you would realize I provided plenty to counter. I said this is what should have happened with a structural compromised section, not what we saw. I said this accepting an impossible task of those planes making it there like that anyways. (FYI nothing is backwards in from what I said...Just backwards in the official story)

So you can rebuttal the simple things I told you about structural design of the buildings and the theory...You can also rebuttal the fact I said those planes could not have made it there as well. I have stated a multitude of reasons why in many posts...Any first rate person in aviation will say the same..Even sceptis video showed that with the calls to people, and video of one at high speeds low altitude, can't even keep control.

I even posted a fun video to show how robust buildings are..And they weren't even built as solid as the WTC....You have multiple visuals of entire sections of buildings falling hundreds of feet at almost free fall then boom, slams into the ground, yet remains perfectly intact....We have buildings rolling down a hill perfectly in tact...Etc etc...As I said you don't have the prerequisites to understand this.

In your world we can put one bomb on a floor and get a perfect demo every time...

So rebuttal please...No more nonsense...Last chance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:55:09 AM
Regardless the no planes theory is in no way critical to the controlled demolition hypothesis. Imo Rayzor is getting what he wants by pushing the no-planes theory which is mostly speculation mixed with the physical

If you think I'm pushing the no-planes theory you really need help with reading.  I'm the only one here who is arguing against the "No Planes"  theory. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:59:21 AM
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

Lol...I have dealt with those tires, it's about as heavy as your motorcycle.

About 300 pounds just for the tire. Does not include the rim and mechanics...That is probably about as heavy as a small car
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:01:13 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out

No you don't have sufficient information in that post.  And I've already explained you got the collapse mechanism backwards.  If you don't want to explain your theory, I can't force you,  but your reluctance to elaborate makes me wonder.

I had plenty...If you had even basic knowledge of structural design you would realize I provided plenty to counter. I said this is what should have happened with a structural compromised section, not what we saw. I said this accepting an impossible task of those planes making it there like that anyways. (FYI nothing is backwards in from what I said...Just backwards in the official story)

So you can rebuttal the simple things I told you about structural design of the buildings and the theory...You can also rebuttal the fact I said those planes could not have made it there as well. I have stated a multitude of reasons why in many posts...Any first rate person in aviation will say the same..Even sceptis video showed that with the calls to people, and video of one at high speeds low altitude, can't even keep control.

I even posted a fun video to show how robust buildings are..And they weren't even built as solid as the WTC....You have multiple visuals of entire sections of buildings falling hundreds of feet at almost free fall then boom, slams into the ground, yet remains perfectly intact....We have buildings rolling down a hill perfectly in tact...Etc etc...As I said you don't have the prerequisites to understand this.

In your world we can put one bomb on a floor and get a perfect demo every time...

So rebuttal please...No more nonsense...Last chance.

I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in your post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:05:18 AM
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

Lol...I have dealt with those tires, it's about as heavy as your motorcycle.

About 300 pounds just for the tire. Does not include the rim and mechanics...That is probably about as heavy as a small car

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k6pVDBlB524/VQ0BcJxhNgI/AAAAAAAAAXc/SVjsGCZUW_c/s640/Roll_3_13.jpg)

The caption on that image says it a wheel from AA11 embedded in a column panel.   

So how did the wheel get embedded in the aluminium cladding panel?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:05:38 AM
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

Lol...I have dealt with those tires, it's about as heavy as your motorcycle.

About 300 pounds just for the tire. Does not include the rim and mechanics...That is probably about as heavy as a small car

Touchè fair point, I was factoring the amount of rubber on the object being so large it could flex and compress a lot, the tyre does seem to have a tear. You are right, however, 500lbs hitting the ground at close to terminal velocity would make a mess.

I can admit when I'm wrong, people actually respect you for it, I've learned, Rayzor...

Anywhoo.

dispute's patented 9/11 shill test.

Rayzor. Yes or No answers.

Does this,



Look like this?



Just to confirm, you are saying there is absolutely nothing suspicious about these items and we shouldn't question NIST?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hbtd20vpr/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)



Your answer can be;
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
No No

My answers are No No, anyone else wants to take the test feel free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:07:10 AM
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Well I be fucked...An Answer...Thanks rayzor...Props for saying you don't know.

It's OK if this stuff is out of your wheelhouse. Our conversation is now complete, not an insult...The prerequisites required comes at almost 2 decades of work. Takes time.

I wouldn't want to cram how to do surgery
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:16:45 AM
(https://s16.postimg.org/5okl3spf9/images_45.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:17:02 AM
I will say this rayzor...If you are truly interested in the truth, please hear this.

Remember when I said the why and who has what to gain means a lot.... I have nothing to gain telling you this, no money, no respect, no nothing....What you are believing is impossible in the real world.

Take it from someone with a PhD in mechanical engineering, and 10 years in the business not to mention almost 20 extra certs...My track record and business has afforded me a luxurious life and given me the option to retire now if I wanted...I have also proven everything I have said about myself here with hard evidence in my earlier days...

My whole point...Is I am allowed to talk about this as an authority.

Hell, two certs, we could start demoing buildings if I wanted to go into that. I shadowed a team my last year of college for 2 weeks as well...

If you want to debate and you get stuck don't do this...



The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

This was a lie and you know it...You were the one that kept talking about it..Everyone can agree with that...I kept say I don't want to and it doesn't change anything...Just my musings..




Long story short...If I was going to believe someone and didn't know about the subject...taking two people of equal qualifications..Would I believe someone who has nothing to gain from my decision...Or someone that did?

I think that option is easy to choose.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:17:16 AM
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Well I be fucked...An Answer...Thanks rayzor...Props for saying you don't know.

It's OK if this stuff is out of your wheelhouse. Our conversation is now complete, not an insult...The prerequisites required comes at almost 2 decades of work. Takes time.

I wouldn't want to cram how to do surgery

So your exit argument is that I need 20 years of work to understand your analysis,   I can understand the NIST analysis but not yours  LOL.

I'm suspicious of your motivation in jumping ship,  especially now that you "No Plane" theory looks like it completely debunked.   

I'd still like to see your video of a plane entering the building without leaving a mark,  but we both know why you haven't shown it.

Good luck with all that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:19:42 AM
He was trying to the right thing by you because he is a good person.

Not that you would understand something like that.

Take my test, I dare you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:20:27 AM
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Well I be fucked...An Answer...Thanks rayzor...Props for saying you don't know.

It's OK if this stuff is out of your wheelhouse. Our conversation is now complete, not an insult...The prerequisites required comes at almost 2 decades of work. Takes time.

I wouldn't want to cram how to do surgery

So your exit argument is that I need 20 years of work to understand your analysis,   I can understand the NIST analysis but not yours  LOL.

I'm suspicious of your motivation in jumping ship,  especially now that you "No Plane" theory looks like it completely debunked.   

I'd still like to see your video of a plane entering the building without leaving a mark,  but we both know why you haven't shown it.

Good luck with all that.

No no no....Go out with dignity like you were rayzor...Also please read my last post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:23:45 AM

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

This was a lie and you know it...You were the one that kept talking about it..Everyone can agree with that...I kept say I don't want to and it doesn't change anything...Just my musings..

So it wasn't you who kept aggressively asking over and over again " How can a plane fly through a building and not leave a mark"   

No the truth is you kept relentlessly pushing the "No Plane Theory"   And in the end you came up short. 

No hard feelings. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:24:40 AM
Sure ok.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:28:00 AM
Sure ok.

I'm guessing you didn't get to the pub.  :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:35:50 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:38:59 AM

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

This was a lie and you know it...You were the one that kept talking about it..Everyone can agree with that...I kept say I don't want to and it doesn't change anything...Just my musings..

So it wasn't you who kept aggressively asking over and over again " How can a plane fly through a building and not leave a mark"   

No the truth is you kept relentlessly pushing the "No Plane Theory"   And in the end you came up short. 

No hard feelings.

That was a simple question...

How can this happen?? I never forced any theory..You asked me what I thought...A stated some ideas I had.

Simple as that.

I wish I could pass my knowledge on to you of what I know about structural design. That video of failed demos should show you how tough those buildings really are...They are SO over built. Actually failure compacity versus their cert load is ridiculous, that is why building don't fall...

Just seeing them roll down a hill intact, or falling 100s of feet and slamming on the ground at almost free fall speed and staying perfectly in tact should tell you something.

Why do you think a demo is so expense and complex?? Why do you think there is a literal celebration if it goes right...One charge is timed wrong or misplaced could equal a complete failure, or damage buildings around it.

If my company were to demo just one of those towers, it would be about a 5-10 million dollar job and 3 months to do it using about 200 people.

Whoever did the three, I give them this...They were a fucking genius...Very well managed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:41:23 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

I rejected sleep because of this..I get it, I have to go to the shop in about 30 mins lol.

At least you got to see the final ending.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:43:13 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

Ok,  so you are in WA,  In VIC  it's gone 11:30   BTW,  that wasn't actually a personal attack,  you just took it that way. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:44:46 AM
I would love to talk in detail about some of the finer points here sometime. Obviously would have to be at my level but I'm a fast learner.

This thread speaks for itself.

Hahaha get some sleep you deserve it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:46:13 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

Ok,  so you are in WA,  In VIC  it's gone 11:30   BTW,  that wasn't actually a personal attack,  you just took it that way.

Perth.

It was off topic and low content with the intention to offend, haven't you got tired of me pulling you up on dishonesty yet? Because I sure have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:49:40 AM
648 am here lol.....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:51:46 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

Ok,  so you are in WA,  In VIC  it's gone 11:30   BTW,  that wasn't actually a personal attack,  you just took it that way.

Perth.

It was off topic and low content with the intention to offend, haven't you got tired of me pulling you up on dishonesty yet? Because I sure have.

You are too sensitive,  I'm not psychic enough to know you are on WA time,  over here it's way too late to go to the pub.   Have fun.  :) 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2017, 06:46:46 AM
"...I can understand the NIST analysis..."

No.

Nobody can understand the NIST analysis of WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7.

The inputs/results data has not nor will it be released.

Without that data, no understanding can be achieved.

Quit your lying already.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 17, 2017, 07:13:11 AM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.
Just out of curiosity, was that "in tact" fiberglass nose cone ever recovered?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 08:30:10 AM
Please address any of the points raised in the thread deadsirius.

Markjo I am willing to bet that they never recovered the nosecone. I could tell you why.

This was a fantastic thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 09:28:26 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

If he didn't use lying, word twisting while never answering a question...It wouldn't have been nasty...But we are trying to put that behind us.


You are a hardcore atheist if I remember right...So you are not allowed to believe in the official story either since magic isn't allowed in your existence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2017, 09:32:13 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.

An honest critic would publicly and readily apply accurate adjectives such as duplicitous, evasion, equivocation, mental reservation, and outright asshattery, rather than masochism.

You are correct.

You do not know.

Or you are just as duplicitous, and engaged in just as much evasion, mental reservation, equivocation, and asshattery as your pal.
 
Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

It might be if you maintain any presence here.

Otherwise, it will be just fine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 11:51:11 AM
I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.

Now, totallackey--since I know you want to, I'm preemptively giving you permission to do your thing and selectively quote my post while bolding the statements that make me look bad out of context.  In fact, I'll do it for you and save you the time:

Quote from: deadsirius

I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.


Am I doing it right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:29:45 PM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during  that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:38:46 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.
Just out of curiosity, was that "in tact" fiberglass nose cone ever recovered?

No, as far as I know nothing was ever found.

The consensus is that it was a debris cloud,  the "Nose Out"  theory as it's become famously known  has been debunked so many times it's always a chuckle when someone throws it into the mix,  I like the fact that it was Hoppy who kicked it onto center stage,  and then sceptimatic backed him up with the obligatory you tube conspiracy video.   Classic stuff. 

The only surprise in that whole sequence of events is that our self proclaimed 911 expert in BHS seemed unaware of the extensive background to the "Nose Out" theory.  If he was he hadn't seen the video.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 17, 2017, 02:46:44 PM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during the that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
Anyone interested in dynamic structural damage analysis of a small, weak top part progressively crushing the strong, intact bottom part of same structure by gravity from top down, I recommend to read the following reports:
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm
http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:53:37 PM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during the that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
Anyone interested in dynamic structural damage analysis of a small, weak top part progressively crushing the strong, intact bottom part of same structure by gravity from top down, I recommend to read the following reports:
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm
http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm

(http://heiwaco.com/censored.JPG)

I see you got the top award. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:10:44 PM
For shame, Rayzor.

Heiwa, just don't.

Sirius if that's what you want to believe then fine, no problem. If you want to debate address a point.

Edit, reading the thread.
I did start off with a slightly aggressive tone, you guys have to understand earlier in the day Rayzor said this about scepti.

Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

Which I did treat him with the respect that he treats flat earthers. I freely admit it.

"If you want the true measure of a man look not at how he treats his equals and superiors, look at how he treats his slaves."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 17, 2017, 03:45:50 PM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during the that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
Anyone interested in dynamic structural damage analysis of a small, weak top part progressively crushing the strong, intact bottom part of same structure by gravity from top down, I recommend to read the following reports:
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm
http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm

(http://heiwaco.com/censored.JPG)

I see you got the top award.

Yes, but EMI (Ms. Jenny Edelstein) paid back all my costs and outlays and actually appologized. I think my paper is pretty good ... like all scientific papers I write.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 17, 2017, 03:59:54 PM
As was obvious in this thread from the first couple of pages. This thread is not actually about 911, the thread is about truthers. Razor and his employer are doing a pychological exam.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 05:46:26 PM
I see you are back again rayzor...Even after admitting you had nothing and admitted defeat. This is disappointing.

This is an attack on "conspiracy theorist"...Not the evidence. That is clear. The disliking of people who disagree with "the man"..

Which I can't completely blame you for that. There has been a long standing campaign against people who critical think and see past the smoke. Turning people who think for themselves into martyrs through disinformation and paying attention only to the "nuts"...Some people are just nuts, others are placed there to be nuts. Then when someone has solid facts to question a story by "the man"...They are instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist..A nut..And promoted by mainstream to ignore. This is why I shame nuts just as bad as mainstream, because of the damage they cause...

However...In this instance, reality, evidence and science shows the mainstream is the "nut" or "fairy tale"...Thus why there isn't just a few people yelling about it...There are real people, very smart people who disagree, and state it publicly.

Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

There is a reason rayzor will never respond to this....

Even the regular people in America....Over 60 percent of them say they have a problem with the official story and want a new private, not government funded investigation. Over 80 percent of the victims family feel the same as well.


If y'all want to have this belief...Fine...But admit that it's a belief based on zero evidence, and I will accept that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 05:47:24 PM
Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

You never asked which flat earther I was referring to.   I have to add that it wasn't you. 

I didn't want to divert the discussion back to WTC7,  while we were still trying to focus on WTC1 and WTC2, 

So,  here is the WTC7 collapse video.  Casting significant doubt on the controlled demolition theory



It also show the penthouse collapse,  occurring long before the main roof line starts collapsing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
I see you are back again rayzor...Even after admitting you had nothing and admitted defeat. This is disappointing.

This is an attack on "conspiracy theorist"...Not the evidence. That is clear. The disliking of people who disagree with "the man"..

Which I can't completely blame you for that. There has been a long standing campaign against people who critical think and see past the smoke. Turning people who think for themselves into martyrs through disinformation and paying attention only to the "nuts"...Some people are just nuts, others are placed there to be nuts. Then when someone has solid facts to question a story by "the man"...They are instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist..A nut..And promoted by mainstream to ignore. This is why I shame nuts just as bad as mainstream, because of the damage they cause...

However...In this instance, reality, evidence and science shows the mainstream is the "nut" or "fairy tale"...Thus why there isn't just a few people yelling about it...There are real people, very smart people who disagree, and state it publicly.

Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

There is a reason rayzor will never respond to this....

Even the regular people in America....Over 60 percent of them say they have a problem with the official story and want a new private, not government funded investigation. Over 80 percent of the victims family feel the same as well.


If y'all want to have this belief...Fine...But admit that it's a belief based on zero evidence, and I will accept that.

You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 17, 2017, 06:49:21 PM
I see you are back again rayzor...Even after admitting you had nothing and admitted defeat. This is disappointing.

This is an attack on "conspiracy theorist"...Not the evidence. That is clear. The disliking of people who disagree with "the man"..

Which I can't completely blame you for that. There has been a long standing campaign against people who critical think and see past the smoke. Turning people who think for themselves into martyrs through disinformation and paying attention only to the "nuts"...Some people are just nuts, others are placed there to be nuts. Then when someone has solid facts to question a story by "the man"...They are instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist..A nut..And promoted by mainstream to ignore. This is why I shame nuts just as bad as mainstream, because of the damage they cause...

However...In this instance, reality, evidence and science shows the mainstream is the "nut" or "fairy tale"...Thus why there isn't just a few people yelling about it...There are real people, very smart people who disagree, and state it publicly.

Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

There is a reason rayzor will never respond to this....

Even the regular people in America....Over 60 percent of them say they have a problem with the official story and want a new private, not government funded investigation. Over 80 percent of the victims family feel the same as well.


If y'all want to have this belief...Fine...But admit that it's a belief based on zero evidence, and I will accept that.

You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.
BOORRRRING
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 07:03:24 PM
Look at you go, trying to pretend I'm a flat earther.

I've stated my position multiple times.

@hoppy boring and pathetic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 07:11:38 PM
Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

You never asked which flat earther I was referring to.   I have to add that it wasn't you. 

I didn't want to divert the discussion back to WTC7,  while we were still trying to focus on WTC1 and WTC2, 

So,  here is the WTC7 collapse video.  Casting significant doubt on the controlled demolition theory



It also show the penthouse collapse,  occurring long before the main roof line starts collapsing.

Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.

Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...

I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.

Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...

Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.

I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"



^^
Reality (watch tower at 50 seconds) though there are other towers too.

You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.

As always, you do not address what I said in the post. I took it before, now I am saying fuck off...Address what I said.

Everytime you do this I will say fuck off fyi.

So either address it or fuck off
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop 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.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:22:03 PM
Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

You never asked which flat earther I was referring to.   I have to add that it wasn't you. 

I didn't want to divert the discussion back to WTC7,  while we were still trying to focus on WTC1 and WTC2, 

So,  here is the WTC7 collapse video.  Casting significant doubt on the controlled demolition theory



It also show the penthouse collapse,  occurring long before the main roof line starts collapsing.

Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.

Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...

I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.

Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...

Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.

I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"



^^
Reality (watch tower at 50 seconds) though there are other towers too.

You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.

As always, you do not address what I said in the post. I took it before, now I am saying fuck off...Address what I said.

Everytime you do this I will say fuck off fyi.

So either address it or fuck off

I have no idea what it was you wanted me to respond to,  as usual,  your train of thought is rambling and incoherent.   Be clearer and more succinct I will address any issue you like.

As far as I'm concerned the 911 conspiracy part of the discussion is done and dusted,  you don't want to discuss it, and I'm fine with that.  I know what you will say already.

Just tie up the loose ends, about the video you claim to have.  And then we are done,   I'll drop the request for details of the evidence for explosives you claimed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:24:07 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.

Only in your mind.  Look at it objectively and you'll see it has no relevance to  WTC  Not sure why you bothered to post it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 07:29:24 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:33:48 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off

I see nothing that requires a response,  all I see is your usual disconnected rambling,   I've asked twice now for you to clarify what it was you were asking. 

Your lack of response to my repeated requests for the video evidence you claim to have of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark is suspicious.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 07:34:13 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

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.

Just saying, for $100 an hour I do divinations  :P
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:59:36 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off

The only thing you appear to be saying it that there are lot of  people don't believe the official  version of events,   that's just an argumentum ad populum,  which I'm sure you know is fallacious reasoning.

Can't see anything else that requires a response.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 08:00:23 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off

I see nothing that requires a response,  all I see is your usual disconnected rambling,   I've asked twice now for you to clarify what it was you were asking. 

Your lack of response to my repeated requests for the video evidence you claim to have of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark is suspicious.

::) Clap trap

Respond to what I said about building 7 couple posts ago.

It's called answer for question...

Notice...You tell me something...I say no, it cannot happen that way, and then I explain why...

Not say a bunch of nonsensical jibberish...Lie....Twist...Etc etc.

It's a very simple process if you actually have a case.

Try it instead of being a troll
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 08:22:17 PM
Ok,  you want a response to what you said about WTC7 collapse video I posted.   I didn't think you wanted to explain your reasoning on any of the structural collapse models.

What I see clearly from that video supports the NIST model of collapse very closely, 

Quote
Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.
Not according to the NIST WTC7 report I read.   But if I  follow that path it leads to stalemate again,  since I  would need a decade worth of study to understand your structural model.


Quote
Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...
You'll have to back that up with facts,  but I know you won't.   You haven't ever backed up anything you've said so far,  so why start now.


Quote
I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.
No you couldn't


Quote
Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...
Yep, I already got that from your arrogant attitude.  You are still making assumptions about what I do or don't know. 


Quote
Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.
I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"

False appeal to authority,  but irrelevant anyway.  This is not music.

Are we done?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 08:27:05 PM
We're done here.

(https://s2.postimg.org/5z3et5q21/baneposting.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 08:32:32 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

16 pages of evidence later.

holographic planes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 08:57:13 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

16 pages of evidence later.

holographic planes.

Lol.... I think he is interested in them, but doesn't know how to say it. Like chuck Norris...He may be kicking your ass, but he might be just trying to say he likes your hat. We all have commutation issues.

Ok,  you want a response to what you said about WTC7 collapse video I posted.   I didn't think you wanted to explain your reasoning on any of the structural collapse models.

What I see clearly from that video supports the NIST model of collapse very closely, 

Quote
Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.
Not according to the NIST WTC7 report I read.   But if I  follow that path it leads to stalemate again,  since I  would need a decade worth of study to understand your structural model.


Quote
Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...
You'll have to back that up with facts,  but I know you won't.   You haven't ever backed up anything you've said so far,  so why start now.


Quote
I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.
No you couldn't


Quote
Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...
Yep, I already got that from your arrogant attitude.  You are still making assumptions about what I do or don't know. 


Quote
Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.
I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"

False appeal to authority,  but irrelevant anyway.  This is not music.

Are we done?   


No, almost 2 decades to get the prerequisites I have. My model is simple...It's called reality based in all things we know of structural dynamics and physics. Read some educational books and you will learn.

Also..I made no assumption of what you know, I actually was excited in hopes of a real discussion because of what you supposedly knew. You proved it with not being able to retort to even the smallest thing. Your actions proved your lack of knowledge, not my assumptions.

(No, as hominems, twisting, lying or ignoring doesn't count....Neither does NIST said so)

Yeah...I am a bit arrogant with people like you just because I don't like people like you. Others, even with different opinions I am very humble and open with them. Also my natural personality is humble, when you come from the bottom you don't forget it.

Though, it doesn't change the truth in it, despite the Arrogant nature.

Anyways....


Troll confirmed.... Pathetic as always. You have never let me down there, least you are good at something.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 09:14:57 PM
No, almost 2 decades to get the prerequisites I have. My model is simple...It's called reality based in all things we know of structural dynamics and physics. Read some educational books and you will learn.

Also..I made no assumption of what you know, I actually was excited in hopes of a real discussion because of what you supposedly knew. You proved it with not being able to retort to even the smallest thing. Your actions proved your lack of knowledge, not my assumptions.

(No, as hominems, twisting, lying or ignoring doesn't count....Neither does NIST said so)

Yeah...I am a bit arrogant with people like you just because I don't like people like you. Others, even with different opinions I am very humble and open with them. Also my natural personality is humble, when you come from the bottom you don't forget it.

Though, it doesn't change the truth in it, despite the Arrogant nature.

Anyways....


Troll confirmed.... Pathetic as always. You have never let me down there, least you are good at something.

So,  I can only debate you if I don't refer to NIST,    that's almost the exact parallel for flat earthers when they say you can't use pictures from space to prove the earth is a globe.

You are obviously lying through your teeth about having a video of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark. 

The lack of knowledge you have displayed about basic 911 facts tells me,  either you haven't done as much research as you claim, or it's been 10 years since you last looked at the evidence.

You are an lying arrogant blowhard and I'm finished with you,  so please go away and don't come back.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 09:40:09 PM
No, almost 2 decades to get the prerequisites I have. My model is simple...It's called reality based in all things we know of structural dynamics and physics. Read some educational books and you will learn.

Also..I made no assumption of what you know, I actually was excited in hopes of a real discussion because of what you supposedly knew. You proved it with not being able to retort to even the smallest thing. Your actions proved your lack of knowledge, not my assumptions.

(No, as hominems, twisting, lying or ignoring doesn't count....Neither does NIST said so)

Yeah...I am a bit arrogant with people like you just because I don't like people like you. Others, even with different opinions I am very humble and open with them. Also my natural personality is humble, when you come from the bottom you don't forget it.

Though, it doesn't change the truth in it, despite the Arrogant nature.

Anyways....


Troll confirmed.... Pathetic as always. You have never let me down there, least you are good at something.

So,  I can only debate you if I don't refer to NIST,    that's almost the exact parallel for flat earthers when they say you can't use pictures from space to prove the earth is a globe.

You are obviously lying through your teeth about having a video of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark. 

The lack of knowledge you have displayed about basic 911 facts tells me,  either you haven't done as much research as you claim, or it's been 10 years since you last looked at the evidence.

You are an lying arrogant blowhard and I'm finished with you,  so please go away and don't come back.

You never even looked at scepti video, there was passing there too. If you actually discuss with me things then I will take the time to get the hardrives out of storage and upload. I bet it is already on YouTube somewhere as well. I have nothing secret in video evidence, all publicly released. It was much harder to compile before video sharing such as YouTube.

(FYI I only semi retired from the 9/11 stuff close to 4 years ago, I will always come out of it if I see a purpose)

I never said don't use NIST ..You can use them all you wish. But when I explain the areas there is a violation, you can't just blindly say well they said so. If it doesn't make sense it isn't true, very simple analogy...And almost always true.

It's not my fault you can't use your own words...No different than following a cult.


Obviously I struck a nerve hence your fit...That's fine. If you would like to try and file a retort i am listening. ...Wanna keep yelling, good for you, doesn't make you look any better.

As for being a blow hard...If someone like you calls me a blow hard.. that means I am doing my job well.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:16:28 AM

You never even looked at scepti video, there was passing there too. If you actually discuss with me things then I will take the time to get the hardrives out of storage and upload. I bet it is already on YouTube somewhere as well. I have nothing secret in video evidence, all publicly released. It was much harder to compile before video sharing such as YouTube.

(FYI I only semi retired from the 9/11 stuff close to 4 years ago, I will always come out of it if I see a purpose)

I never said don't use NIST ..You can use them all you wish. But when I explain the areas there is a violation, you can't just blindly say well they said so. If it doesn't make sense it isn't true, very simple analogy...And almost always true.

It's not my fault you can't use your own words...No different than following a cult.


Obviously I struck a nerve hence your fit...That's fine. If you would like to try and file a retort i am listening. ...Wanna keep yelling, good for you, doesn't make you look any better.

As for being a blow hard...If someone like you calls me a blow hard.. that means I am doing my job well.

Yeah,  thanks for that but no thanks,  I've heard more than enough,   I'll pass.   You are actually  more than 4 years out of touch with 911.

The topic is open for anyone who thinks that 911 was an inside job,   excepting "Quadruple No Planers"  They are too far gone for sensible discussion.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:26:24 AM

Anywhoo.

dispute's patented 9/11 shill test.

Rayzor. Yes or No answers.

Does this,



Look like this?



Just to confirm, you are saying there is absolutely nothing suspicious about these items and we shouldn't question NIST?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hbtd20vpr/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)



Your answer can be;
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
No No

My answers are No No, anyone else wants to take the test feel free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:44:00 AM

Anywhoo.

dispute's patented 9/11 shill test.

Rayzor. Yes or No answers.

Does this,



Look like this?



Just to confirm, you are saying there is absolutely nothing suspicious about these items and we shouldn't question NIST?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hbtd20vpr/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)



Your answer can be;
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
No No

My answers are No No, anyone else wants to take the test feel free.

I'd say No to the first,  that's a no brainer,   the second, is misleading.  The fire dept knew hours beforehand that WTC7 was going to collapse.  The BBC report timing is a furphy,
The fire dept suspected at 2:00 in the afternoon that WTC7 was going to collapse, they say the walls on the south west corner around the 13th floor were bulging dangerously,  that's a whole 3 hours before it collapsed.

So for the second I'll say no there was nothing misleading.  But you imply that we shouldn't question NIST,  that's wrong,  you  should question everything.

That makes it No, No





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:44:52 AM
That makes it No, No

All I ever wanted mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:49:52 AM
That makes it No, No

All I ever wanted mate.

Here's a better NIST analysis of WTC7 collapse,  the Fire Dept comments I referred to are at 1:33,  They were also worried about the Marriot collapsing.



I'm still suspicious as to why they won't release the WTC7 model data.  But not enough to think it's a conspiracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:51:10 AM
I can respect that, thanks for being honest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 12:52:33 AM
Yeah,  thanks for that but no thanks,  I've heard more than enough,   I'll pass.   You are actually  more than 4 years out of touch with 911.

The topic is open for anyone who thinks that 911 was an inside job,   excepting "Quadruple No Planers"  They are too far gone for sensible discussion.

You can't even answer a single question...You know not a single detail. You can parrot a conclusion of an impossible report. Yet you cannot extrapolate a single detail of it, so can only accept it's conclusions...It's sad really.

The outcome of all this is your answers...ad hominems, twists, lies, and being a brainless sock puppet.

Out of date to what? You wouldn't even know...We didn't even get past a few details of structural design, and a few details of the planes. That has changed for decades...Nothing new. We could just not go any further because you could not even form a reply.

I really did hit a nerve with you didn't I...Everyone fails, it's how you handle it ,not the failure itself.

Now quit acting like a troll if you are who you say you are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:56:29 AM
Well, there is that too. ;D

I can put it behind me I guess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:06:38 AM
Yeah,  thanks for that but no thanks,  I've heard more than enough,   I'll pass.   You are actually  more than 4 years out of touch with 911.

The topic is open for anyone who thinks that 911 was an inside job,   excepting "Quadruple No Planers"  They are too far gone for sensible discussion.

You can't even answer a single question...You know not a single detail. You can parrot a conclusion of an impossible report. Yet you cannot extrapolate a single detail of it, so can only accept it's conclusions...It's sad really.

The outcome of all this is your answers...ad hominems, twists, lies, and being a brainless sock puppet.

Out of date to what? You wouldn't even know...We didn't even get past a few details of structural design, and a few details of the planes. That has changed for decades...Nothing new. We could just not go any further because you could not even form a reply.

I really did hit a nerve with you didn't I...Everyone fails, it's how you handle it ,not the failure itself.

Now quit acting like a troll if you are who you say you are.

There you go again making assumptions yet again,  I think i've answered every question that you've asked,  but I can't be sure,  sometimes your questions are heavily buried in rambling descriptions of how much you know and how much research you've personally done on 911 conspiracies.   I already called BS on your supposed years of research,  too many dumb errors of fact. 

I'm beginning to be suspicious of your claimed qualifications,  the ability to construct logical argument seems to be a skill you lack,  but is something a PhD thesis requires, along with a degree of rigour in the underlying assumptions,  your contributions here show a lack of logical structure,  and a lack of the degree of rigour that basic research requires.

If there's a question I've missed,  please try to state it clearly and logically as you can.  I'll try to answer if I know or offer an opinion, otherwise I'll just say I don't know.

You do realize that as the person putting forward the conspiracy concepts,  it's your place to support your hypothesis not mine. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 01:08:13 AM
BHS, would you like to tell me your model of how the collapse went? I'm too lazy to look through the whole thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:09:28 AM
Well, there is that too. ;D

I can put it behind me I guess.

Yeah...I guess so. You can deal with him...He is in your country anyways, not mine lol.

I could build him a replica of a tower to demonstrate my point wouldn't matter. NIST would still be right..Even though they will never release their inputs lol. So the model is dead until they do, which they won't, signed on paper.

Some people need to cling on to that, rather it be from ignorance of fear.

Although he obviously knows nothing from his parroted responses, I think it is more than that, more the fear...Maybe needs to stay in the herd...Hell I dunno...

It's not my problem anymore...He must have his bubble, who am I to mess with that. Long as he is happy.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:11:38 AM
BHS, would you like to tell me your model of how the collapse went? I'm too lazy to look through the whole thread.

I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thread,  he never said, and when pressed on the issue,  he declined to elaborate claiming that 20 years of experience was required to understand it.

Maybe you'll have better luck than I did.  I'll watch with interest.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:13:45 AM
This.

Mr Evar read the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:16:50 AM
There you go again making assumptions yet again,  I think i've answered every question that you've asked,  but I can't be sure,  sometimes your questions are heavily buried in rambling descriptions of how much you know and how much research you've personally done on 911 conspiracies.   I already called BS on your supposed years of research,  too many dumb errors of fact. 

I'm beginning to be suspicious of your claimed qualifications,  the ability to construct logical argument seems to be a skill you lack,  but is something a PhD thesis requires, along with a degree of rigour in the underlying assumptions,  your contributions here show a lack of logical structure,  and a lack of the degree of rigour that basic research requires.

If there's a question I've missed,  please try to state it clearly and logically as you can.  I'll try to answer if I know or offer an opinion, otherwise I'll just say I don't know.

You do realize that as the person putting forward the conspiracy concepts,  it's your place to support your hypothesis not mine.

I have stated many dead factors open for a rebuttal...

As a matter of fact...You see that quote on my sig from you?? That was your response when I made you after 13 pages of bullshit...Made you answer one question directly...

You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Look through my posts older posts last year, you will see plenty of proof of anything I said.

I even offered you here to prove anything you wanted...The truth is easy.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true.

I already said stay in your bubble...Believe what you want. As for who had a case and who didn't, anyone who wants to read the thread will see the answer. That is the best thing about a forum
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:23:32 AM
BHS, would you like to tell me your model of how the collapse went? I'm too lazy to look through the whole thread.

Number one... Rayzor is a liar, I attempted to explain things to him all the time..

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Just this, because it was the first I found... He couldn't even answer something this simple..

Then finally I made him answer, and he admitted he had none.


As to the answer to your question, I will speak no more about theories because of rayzor. The only thing I will speak about is facts. Such as why the 9/11 commission report or NIST is no plausible in real life.

Want to speak about what really brought the towers down, sorry, not now, for rayzor ruined that ship for a while. Only 100 percent facts and reality...No theories, at least from me.

If you would like to discuss that, I will be happy to
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:32:54 AM
As a matter of fact...You see that quote on my sig from you?? That was your response when I made you after 13 pages of bullshit...Made you answer one question directly...

LOL,   you didn't understand what I said,  not totally surprised,  I sort of suspected it at the time.

Now read the rest of it  to see what I actually said, and put your drink down and brain into gear and try to understand what I actually said about your explanation of structural collapse.

Quote from: Rayzor
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Funny thing is you are still posting the same irrelevant shit. 

Thanks for putting it in your signature,  that's classic.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:40:17 AM
It's not irrelevant, it never has been.

You believe the NIST report, that's fine.

We have done our own research and came to our own conclusions, this is also fine.

Each side had presented their arguments, we are just running in circles now.

Like I said in the previous thread, at this point we have to agree to disagree Rayzor.

Nothing is being gained now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:40:33 AM
You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Umm,  you seem to be failing to realise,  that's it's your theory under discussion not mine,  It's not my conspiracy it's yours.   It's your argument to make not mine.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 01:41:27 AM
Topic is XXX What is the truth?

Answer is of course that truth is what the government says and what is taught at universities. With Mr. Trump in the White House, the truth may be something else tomorrow.

An early example is the atomic bombs 1945. The truth then was that they worked and are marvellous and this is also taught at universities today.

Another example is human space travel 1961 onwards. The truth is that it is possible, it has been done safely and we should all happily pay for people being in space today. It is also taught at universities.

The 911 truth is that 19 Arabs were convinced to carry out the hijackings + destructions and that some obscure Saudi planned it all. This Saudi has later been murdered by Obama, so the case is closed. No need to discuss it, even if it also taught at universities. 

The latest truth is that our universe is full of Black Holes that frequently collide since billion years and produce waves in space time, which were discovered by some Americans last year.  It will soon be taught at universities. I describe at my website.

The truth about a flat Earth is still not established, as Mr. Trump has not made up his mind yet.  But he has almost four years time to do so.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:42:44 AM
Heiwa. Don't you fucking dare mate.

Not a request.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:52:19 AM
Nothing is being gained now.

Agreed... If someone would like to and has the ability to debate my rejection of the official story I would be very glad to do so....Otherwise it's dead.


You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Umm,  you seem to be failing to realise,  that's it's your theory under discussion not mine,  It's not my conspiracy it's yours.   It's your argument to make not mine.

I have tried...You only focused on non sense or twisted things.

If you have questions to why I say something is not possible (as I said no more theory talk) then ask. I will answer, I would expect the same from you.

This is the way I speak in business or debates, not chit chat...Simple question and answer directly.

If this cannot be done then we are done.


Heiwa.....Don't bring that nuclear shit in here, you got your own threat with that. I know you are lonely because this thread has stopped traffic in yours, but just relax ....It will be OK.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 01:53:55 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Just this, because it was the first I found... He couldn't even answer something this simple..

Then finally I made him answer, and he admitted he had none.


As to the answer to your question, I will speak no more about theories because of rayzor. The only thing I will speak about is facts. Such as why the 9/11 commission report or NIST is no plausible in real life.

Want to speak about what really brought the towers down, sorry, not now, for rayzor ruined that ship for a while. Only 100 percent facts and reality...No theories, at least from me.

If you would like to discuss that, I will be happy to
I don't quite understand the context of that quote. But anyways, no one here can provide facts about the collapse itself, unless anyone here have either a scale-model of the collapse or extensive footage. Facts are that the twin towers collapsed, and I think thanks to the footage of the collapse, including lots of witnesses, facts are also that planes did collide with the twin towers. The rest is speculation or hypothesis, and whichever hypothesises within a margin of error agrees perfectly with footage, witnesses and other related issues would be theories of the collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 02:11:20 AM
Your opinion is welcome Master Evar, however you haven't added to the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 02:25:16 AM
Sorry, Master_evarthat was just the first one I pulled...It would have been better if seen in the context of the conversation.

I agree...The towers did collapse, that is a fact (unless you entertain the theory they have always been holgrams lol)... We need not hypothesize what brought them down, all I want to do is show the official story is fabricated. As for witnesses, there were more that said something other than seeing a commercial plane than ones who did, those were just stricken from the commission report, fortunately we still have their testimonials for the record.

I believe the footage we saw intensifies the fact the official story is fabricated. Not to mention all the evidence aside from just the collapse (such as finding the passports when titanium was being "vaporized", the other incidents in the other locations, etc etc etc)

We have the exact blue prints of the towers, that isn't a mystery. Exact blue prints of the planes, no mystery, we have physics and centuries of structural engineering research and design. All of these things tell us of the "miracles" we witnessed that day, not just 1, but three hours apart. We have all we need to determine what we saw doesn't not add up with the official story.

Everything else I don't care about...When we have an obvious fabrication from the government, then that tells us there is a reason they lied. Governments don't lie for fun...There is always a motive.



This isn't some dumb theory we are talking about...We are talking about an event that changed history, removed freedoms, put a nation in severe debt, destroyed other nations, and was the catalyst to millions of people to lose their life. I would not hesitate to give my life to the cause if it was going to make a difference.

So I apologize if I get rowdy at times in this, but it is a big deal...Quite possibly the biggest deal that might happen in my life time. And it just makes me almost vomit when I hear people blindly accept this. I can tell you 100 percent the official story is a lie from experience, not Google. So imagine knowing this for a fact, knowing what it caused, trying to do something about it, but so far failing. Many like myself are just as depressed about it, yet, we don't talk much about it currently because of the sore spot it is.

It's not directly at the person individually, it is more at the situation...As I said, this is a big deal, not just 3 buildings being demoed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:30:11 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

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..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

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...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

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 you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Just this, because it was the first I found... He couldn't even answer something this simple..

Then finally I made him answer, and he admitted he had none.


As to the answer to your question, I will speak no more about theories because of rayzor. The only thing I will speak about is facts. Such as why the 9/11 commission report or NIST is no plausible in real life.

Want to speak about what really brought the towers down, sorry, not now, for rayzor ruined that ship for a while. Only 100 percent facts and reality...No theories, at least from me.

If you would like to discuss that, I will be happy to
I don't quite understand the context of that quote. But anyways, no one here can provide facts about the collapse itself, unless anyone here have either a scale-model of the collapse or extensive footage. Facts are that the twin towers collapsed, and I think thanks to the footage of the collapse, including lots of witnesses, facts are also that planes did collide with the twin towers. The rest is speculation or hypothesis, and whichever hypothesises within a margin of error agrees perfectly with footage, witnesses and other related issues would be theories of the collapse.

I didn't understand it at first either,  he seems to be saying the buildings didn't collapse,  but in his own confused way he is trying to say that something else was required for the buildings to collase the way we see on the video.   Once you agree to this he will probably  wheel in his demolition theory as the only alternative.

I know his logic is unconventional,  and somewhat convoluted,  but that's the way he thinks. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 02:36:49 AM

I didn't understand it at first either,  he seems to be saying the buildings didn't collapse,  but in his own confused way he is trying to say that something else was required for the buildings to collase the way we see on the video.   Once you agree to this he will probably  wheel in his demolition theory as the only alternative.

I know his logic is unconventional,  and somewhat convoluted,  but that's the way he thinks. 


You are a twisted liar...

You know clearly when I originally posted that I was explaining a few reasons why a plane would not being down the towers as we saw.

I used some examples of the designs on the tower and other info to explain they would not have fallen like that with that structural damage. Nor would it achieve free fall into its own foot print, etc etc.

You know what I was saying.

You see, master evar stated an opinion different than mine...Yet with respect, no lies, no twisting ....What did he get from me?

The same respect.....

That is the difference between a troll and an actual conversation...

Sorry dispute...I can't be nice to him, he is demented..I tried
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 03:05:46 AM
Your opinion is welcome Master Evar, however you haven't added to the thread.
I added my opinion. BHS claimed that he was omnly going to discuss facts, not theories (or hypothesis, I guess). I explained what the facts were (in the scientific sense) and that any explanation for how the collapse escalated is either an hypothesis or theory. Essentially declaring that if BHS was only going to discuss facts, there wouldn't be anything more to discuss really. That's the thing with facts: You shouldn't have to discuss them.

And there's not going to be much of a discussion if BHS won't explicitly declare his standpoint. By asking for BHS's standpoint I was hoping to open up some opportunity for discussion, but his response only serves to close those opportunities. Is it me who's not adding to the discussion, or is it the one who declares that they will not discuss the things arguable, but only the things which aren't really arguable?

Sorry BHS, but I don't think that there's anything to discuss fact-wise. It's not a fact that planes can't bring skyscrapers down by crashing into them, and using evidence to prove that there is fabrication is... hypothesising. Blueprints and physics isn't enough, because some of them are/contains approximations and nothing is perfectly accurate. A collision is an extremely complicated system to perform calculations in, which means we have to either recreate them in reality, in dumbed down simulations or dumb them down extremely to calculate them for hand. The two latter comes with potentially too much generalisation, or completely missing out on very specific physical phenomena (that we may not even know of). So as long as we don't recreate the collision in reality, everything we do to find out how things escalated will have a margin of error that means we aren't perfectly accurately representing reality. Thus we are only dealing with hypothesis and theories, not facts or truths, when discussing the collision and the following collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 03:47:26 AM
Heiwa. Don't you fucking dare mate.

Not a request.

Too late.

The show must go on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Your opinion is welcome Master Evar, however you haven't added to the thread.
I added my opinion. BHS claimed that he was omnly going to discuss facts, not theories (or hypothesis, I guess). I explained what the facts were (in the scientific sense) and that any explanation for how the collapse escalated is either an hypothesis or theory. Essentially declaring that if BHS was only going to discuss facts, there wouldn't be anything more to discuss really. That's the thing with facts: You shouldn't have to discuss them.

And there's not going to be much of a discussion if BHS won't explicitly declare his standpoint. By asking for BHS's standpoint I was hoping to open up some opportunity for discussion, but his response only serves to close those opportunities. Is it me who's not adding to the discussion, or is it the one who declares that they will not discuss the things arguable, but only the things which aren't really arguable?

Sorry BHS, but I don't think that there's anything to discuss fact-wise. It's not a fact that planes can't bring skyscrapers down by crashing into them, and using evidence to prove that there is fabrication is... hypothesising. Blueprints and physics isn't enough, because some of them are/contains approximations and nothing is perfectly accurate. A collision is an extremely complicated system to perform calculations in, which means we have to either recreate them in reality, in dumbed down simulations or dumb them down extremely to calculate them for hand. The two latter comes with potentially too much generalisation, or completely missing out on very specific physical phenomena (that we may not even know of). So as long as we don't recreate the collision in reality, everything we do to find out how things escalated will have a margin of error that means we aren't perfectly accurately representing reality. Thus we are only dealing with hypothesis and theories, not facts or truths, when discussing the collision and the following collapse.

Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
Nothing is being gained now.

Agreed... If someone would like to and has the ability to debate my rejection of the official story I would be very glad to do so....Otherwise it's dead.


You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Umm,  you seem to be failing to realise,  that's it's your theory under discussion not mine,  It's not my conspiracy it's yours.   It's your argument to make not mine.

I have tried...You only focused on non sense or twisted things.

If you have questions to why I say something is not possible (as I said no more theory talk) then ask. I will answer, I would expect the same from you.

This is the way I speak in business or debates, not chit chat...Simple question and answer directly.

If this cannot be done then we are done.


Heiwa.....Don't bring that nuclear shit in here, you got your own threat with that. I know you are lonely because this thread has stopped traffic in yours, but just relax ....It will be OK.

Just laugh about it.

Donald will sort it out.

Asteroid collisions will wipe us out. Soon.

Visit my website and I tell you more.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 04:02:26 AM
Heiwa this is our thread, you have contributed nothing, please do not spam links to your site here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 04:30:14 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?
I do believe in the official story given. Since there are no recordings or witness of the sounds close to that which demolition charges generates during the incident, I am very skeptical that it was a controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 04:41:21 AM
I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.

Now, totallackey--since I know you want to, I'm preemptively giving you permission to do your thing and selectively quote my post while bolding the statements that make me look bad out of context.  In fact, I'll do it for you and save you the time:

Quote from: deadsirius

I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.


Am I doing it right?

I will leave everything as is.

You can believe what you want.

Why you think people who provided the OS are experts I have no clue.

I cannot make any claim as to your methods of drawing conclusions, but seems to me someone who is interested in the scientific method would, by default, REJECT the reports issued by the NIST because they are not subject to being repeated and falsified.

So, care to explain your cherry picking?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 04:44:11 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during  that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

Yeah, by all means read the reports.

Just do not ask for the data inputs/results so you can test whether the modeling is accurate, repeatable, and falsifiable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 04:58:15 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 04:59:20 AM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

While you are at it, pony up with the reason why you reject the reason provided by the NIST chair in his response to the FOIA request for the inputs/results data utilized for the modeling.

Further, please explain how you can trumpet science on the one hand and so thoroughly reject the scientific method on the other?

I've repeatedly said I don't know why they don't release specific data, it's political, and that's not a matter in which I have any expertise,  want to talk physics,  fine I'm there. 

I'll say it again, from my point of view, I see no valid reason why the data could not be released.     

I did speculate that they might not want conspiracy nutters second guessing their model choices,  but that's just pure speculation,  I'm not going to run around in my tin foil hat shouting conspiracy based on pure speculation.

The NIST did not release the inputs/results data utilized in their testing out of concerns for "...public safety."

You admit here you reject that reason and substitute your own.

Either way, you demonstrate quite clearly you reject the scientific method of inquiry.

That's cool.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 04:59:46 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?
I do believe in the official story given. Since there are no recordings or witness of the sounds close to that which demolition charges generates during the incident, I am very skeptical that it was a controlled demolition.

I respect that, no problem thanks for the honest reply.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 05:05:38 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?

We can measure free fall  (gravitational acceleration) on building 7 for 2.25 seconds. As you say the models do not show this free fall, which I find very concerning.

The collapse of the utility penthouse seconds before the free fall is indicative of a demolition, cutting the central supports as pictures have demonstrated a perfect 45° cut of the central support.

As for the sound of the explosions, it is not necessary for the demolition hypothesis with prior noise proofing and clever engineering.

This is my position, I don't expect to change anyones mind but this is what I believe and why I believe it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 05:16:22 AM

So,  I can only debate you if I don't refer to NIST...

BY ALL MEANS REFER TO THE NIST AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE!!!

Everyone here is absolutely overjoyed you are rejecting the scientific method in your arguments, since the fact is they have not released the inputs/results data utilized in the modeling.

I think it is hilarious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?

We can measure free fall  (gravitational acceleration) on building 7 for 2.25 seconds. As you say the models do not show this free fall, which I find very concerning.

The collapse of the utility penthouse seconds before the free fall is indicative of a demolition, cutting the central supports as pictures have demonstrated a perfect 45° cut of the central support.

What I am saying, and NIST apparently as well, I'm not familiar with their report, is that you are not timing the collapse from its beginning.

Quote
As for the sound of the explosions, it is not necessary for the demolition hypothesis with prior noise proofing and clever engineering.

It isn't necessary but it requires a bunch of mental gymnastics.

Quote
This is my position, I don't expect to change anyones mind but this is what I believe and why I believe it.

That's fine, but you should recognize that your position is just as divorced from reality as those that you accuse of following NIST.

From my perspective this is what I know (or don't) about 911:

-Planes definitely hit the WTC and collapse followed an hour or so after.

-It doesn't appear, to my eye, that they collapsed at free fall speed, but I am open to video evidence showing otherwise.

-Controlled demolitions look, sound and occur much differently than the collapse of the WTC buildings


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 05:27:57 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?

1) There are reports of numerous explosions.

B) I know what a controlled demolition looks like, having witnessed many of them.

III) It is expected the interiors of buildings undergoing demolition will be taken out firts and the fact is that is what we saw on 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: 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