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
  • 577714 Views
*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #30 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?   

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 20637
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #31 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.
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

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #32 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

 


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #33 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #34 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.

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

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 20637
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #35 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.





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?
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

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #36 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


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #37 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.





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
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 04:36:33 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 20637
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #38 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.

« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 04:27:28 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

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #39 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.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #40 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,
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 04:35:43 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #41 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #42 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #43 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.

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #44 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?


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 20637
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #45 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.
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

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #46 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. 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 05:14:56 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #47 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
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 05:21:19 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #48 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 20637
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #49 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
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

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #50 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.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #51 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.

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #52 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #53 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.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #54 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.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #55 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. 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #56 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. 



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11622
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #57 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.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #58 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...
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #59 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.

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