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
  • 598014 Views
*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #60 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #61 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? 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #62 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)



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

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #63 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.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #64 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.

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

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #65 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
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 08:56:47 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #66 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.




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
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #67 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?



 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #68 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 –40C instead of
minimum –47C) and is available only in the U.S.A.


« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 09:15:11 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 47592
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #69 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
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #70 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.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #71 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.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #72 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.




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
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 09:36:40 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #73 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #74 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #75 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11801
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #76 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.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

disputeone

  • 23006
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #77 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.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

disputeone

  • 23006
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #78 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.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #79 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 23006
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #80 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.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #81 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. 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #82 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. 

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23006
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #83 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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 06:01:41 PM by disputeone »
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #84 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,
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 06:25:11 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23006
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #85 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.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #86 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 23006
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #87 on: February 14, 2017, 06:36:30 PM »
science doesn't lie.

He's starting to see our point, I hope.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11827
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #88 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23006
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #89 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.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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