Poll

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

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

Total Members Voted: 23

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

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 286446 Views
*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
911 What is the truth?
« 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
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 02:13:17 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1 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.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #2 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?

 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3 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.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #4 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.   
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5 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
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 11:07:37 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #6 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #7 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?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 11:19:41 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11059
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #8 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.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 11:29:11 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #9 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.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11059
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #10 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!
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #11 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
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 12:07:45 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #12 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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 12:05:57 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #13 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.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11059
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #14 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. 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 12:20:54 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11059
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2017, 12:35:10 AM »


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.



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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 12:37:02 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #16 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11059
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #17 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?

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

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #18 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.   
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #19 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?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #20 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.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #21 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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 02:30:53 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #22 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.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11059
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #23 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.



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.

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

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #24 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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 03:08:10 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #25 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.



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?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #26 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?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

JerkFace

  • 10950
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #27 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.   
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 03:24:23 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18605
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #28 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.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11059
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #29 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
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir