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
  • 599077 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11154
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #90 on: February 14, 2017, 07:15:22 PM »

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

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

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

Pick one.

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

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

Occams Razor anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly what I said would happen in an actual collision


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Now stop lying, it's pathetic.


« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 07:22:04 PM 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 #91 on: February 14, 2017, 07:28:28 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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


And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 07:37:27 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #92 on: February 14, 2017, 07:37:47 PM »
Yeah, I'm done also, do you know who he is reminding me of? Aisantaros.

This isn't even quality bantz.



Pretty much ;D.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11801
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2017, 08:05:48 PM »
Rayzor sucks. This thread is another victory for truth.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #94 on: February 14, 2017, 08:09:16 PM »
HOPPY FOR MOD!!
We should just let rayzor have his fake victory.

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

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

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

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

Lol.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 10:27:09 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

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #95 on: February 14, 2017, 09:59:13 PM »
Also...On a side note rayzor...You want to make jabs at me personally, don't be a bitch....say it straight up. I actually prove whatever I say, I have done it many times here in the past, I can make you look stupid just like I have done others.

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

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

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

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

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

Don't go off on tangents,  just stick to one thing at a time.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #96 on: February 14, 2017, 10:01:50 PM »
And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.

Show me where I have lied.   If you can't then you should apologise.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #97 on: February 14, 2017, 10:08:57 PM »
Rayzor sucks. This thread is another victory for truth.

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

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 #98 on: February 14, 2017, 10:26:56 PM »
Also...On a side note rayzor...You want to make jabs at me personally, don't be a bitch....say it straight up. I actually prove whatever I say, I have done it many times here in the past, I can make you look stupid just like I have done others.

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

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

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

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

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

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


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

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

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

Not a chance.

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

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


The entire first post of mine on this page is entirely of examples. I could be even more specific...But I want to see what your choice and attitude are before putting much time into this.
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 #99 on: February 14, 2017, 10:29:41 PM »
Oh...And yes...I do agree that heat visible on cleanup was a factor in bringing down the towers, but I can say for a fact the heat was not there for the reasons stated. The rest is educated speculation from there
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #100 on: February 14, 2017, 10:52:12 PM »
Also...On a side note rayzor...You want to make jabs at me personally, don't be a bitch....say it straight up. I actually prove whatever I say, I have done it many times here in the past, I can make you look stupid just like I have done others.

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

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

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

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

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

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


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

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

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

Not a chance.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #101 on: February 14, 2017, 11:05:43 PM »
Oh...And yes...I do agree that heat visible on cleanup was a factor in bringing down the towers, but I can say for a fact the heat was not there for the reasons stated. The rest is educated speculation from there

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

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


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




Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #102 on: February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM »
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #103 on: February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM »
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #104 on: February 15, 2017, 12:06:42 AM »
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the NIST report  6.14.4

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


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

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

 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #105 on: February 15, 2017, 12:13:53 AM »
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

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

Because I think for myself and make my own decisions.

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

For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #106 on: February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM »
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

It falls at 1G  I was sure you already knew that any unsupported mass will fall at 1G  --- Edit: correction,  only on the surface of the earth, and ignoring denspressure. :)

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

Because I think for myself and make my own decisions.

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

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

If  asking for your version of the collapse is trolling you,  then this is going to be a very short discussion.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 12:24:34 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #107 on: February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM »

For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see why you were scared to debate him.

For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

I am being condescending now, I admit it, you lost your chance on page two tbh.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #108 on: February 15, 2017, 12:42:05 AM »
You are digging a massive hole with me and BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D
I see why you were scared to debate him.

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



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 #109 on: February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM »
You accuse me of lying,  I take personal offence to that,  you need to show me where you think I've lied.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

As for your NIST quote...

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

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

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

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


Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless you have a wand..

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

From the NIST report  6.14.4

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


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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this not seem suspect to you?

You must be forcing yourself to choke on this for some other reason right?
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 #110 on: February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM »
BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D

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

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

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

People view the way I speak out of arrogance at times...It's not that, I just try to speak of what I lived and seen, because I really like it when people talk to me that way... I don't want to hear what you read in a book, I want to hear what you did with your hands...Not only is it exciting for me, it is REAL WORLD info that I will remember and know IT HAPPENED
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #111 on: February 15, 2017, 01:24:36 AM »
...You still have never even addressed my very first question lol. You just keep posting things for other people or NIST...But since you are trying to play nice, I will as well, just don't expect detailed answers until you start using your own words.

What question was that?

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

As for your NIST quote...

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Does this not seem suspect to you?

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

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

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


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #112 on: February 15, 2017, 01:27:23 AM »
Then there are times, like when rayzor was speaking of GSM and LTE, I told him no it would have been CDMA in 2001...Not my wheelhouse, but I can get my friend from Ericsson to confirm. Even if I know the answer from being told, I would still bring in confirmation because it's not my expertise.

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

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #113 on: February 15, 2017, 01:44:38 AM »
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

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

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #114 on: February 15, 2017, 01:48:42 AM »
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

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

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.

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

So what's your theory?   I keep asking and you keep ducking.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #115 on: February 15, 2017, 02:05:08 AM »
Controlled demolition is the only way building 7 could have fallen at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

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

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

What question was that?

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

As for your NIST quote...

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Does this not seem suspect to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #117 on: February 15, 2017, 02:16:08 AM »
Controlled demolition is the only way building 7 could have fallen at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

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

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

Controlled demolition doesn't match the facts.

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

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

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11832
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #118 on: February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM »
My first question...Was in direct response to what you said.."I saw a plane hit the tower, so that is what brought it down"

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

My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?   Get your story straight.
Then when I repeated your assertion that it didn't leave a mark,  you accuse me of lying about what you said.   You can't have it both ways.   

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 23131
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #119 on: February 15, 2017, 02:39:35 AM »
Quote
does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Sorry Rayzor but you lowered the bar first.







Yes, it does.
Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II
I had a science based revelatory experience.

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