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
  • 761431 Views
?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #600 on: February 19, 2017, 01:48:43 AM »
Disputeone, I don't think the free-fall says much. Most likely the building collapsed from the inside out, and the falling debris of the inside would land at the bottom and push out sideways, right into the support for the outer walls. As the support from the outer walls was crushed by the expanding pile of interior debris, and parts of the interior was dragging down the outer walls, they started collapsing down at near freefall. Not saying it's not what we wouldn't expect from a controlled demolition, but it doesn't rule out the official story.

If he has models, I'd like him to post them. I can't work with something someone else simply claims they have.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #601 on: February 19, 2017, 01:50:01 AM »
He has done computer models, that was stated on page one.

This is on page one master evar. I could not get a recreation as we saw...I could simulate a collapse...But not a total one, not one at close to free fall, and not one into its own foot print.

No one can simulate their own NIST, and no one has...Because they have officially written they will not release the inputs for their model. This is unheard-of in a situation like this.


Yes, as I have stated before, I use pictures to demonstrate things to help people that do not have experience in that field or can speak in technical terms. It helps the brain to understand a bit, I can compute things like this in my head and understand. Someone who has no experience will likely not be able to, so it helps.

I cannot show any instances like 9/11 visually because there is none before or after that because it defies all logic, physics, and structural design/theory known.

The only example we have is a model that no one but the creators know....And I am sorry, that is not good enough for me. I refuse to trade reality for a model unless they give me the inputs. They will not though because they cannot, that will end their game. If they release the inputs, and I can create the same model with one of my programs...Then I will convert to mainstream.

Until then...I choose reality, all know physics, and centuries of structural design.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #602 on: February 19, 2017, 01:54:48 AM »
Rayzor.

You still don't seem to recognize when you are using strawmen.

Never assume malice when ignorance will suffice.

But I think you know the meaning of it now? Surely.

Disputeone, I don't think the free-fall says much. Most likely the building collapsed from the inside out, and the falling debris of the inside would land at the bottom and push out sideways, right into the support for the outer walls. As the support from the outer walls was crushed by the expanding pile of interior debris, and parts of the interior was dragging down the outer walls, they started collapsing down at near freefall. Not saying it's not what we wouldn't expect from a controlled demolition, but it doesn't rule out the official story.

If he has models, I'd like him to post them. I can't work with something someone else simply claims they have.

Maybe it doesn't rule out the official story, but it is very strong evidence against it. Once, but three times in one day is a mathematical impossibility.

You would have to wait longer than the entire age of the universe for anything so unlikely to happen.

Can you elaborate on your explanation of the free fall.

Specifically how the planes damaged the internal support enough to cause a collapse of the inside of the structure while leaving the outer frame unaffected. Factoring in the temperature and intensity that jet fuel can reach uncompressed in an open burn situation.

Edit. Leaving out building 7 for now.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #603 on: February 19, 2017, 01:58:16 AM »
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.

Heiwa,  I never thought to say this,  you might be a complete conspiracy nutter,  but at least you are up front about it. 

Did you know that Stephen Bannon is a 911 truther,  and that Donald Trump is a big fan of Alex Jones ( infowars)  famous for goblins and gay frogs, but also a 911 truther,  don't know about Jared Kushner or Stephen MIller,  but it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.   However his target will be probably be the intelligence agencies who knew in advance but did nothing,  rather than the engineering aspects of the NIST resport.

Hang about for a while,  you might get called as an expert witness :)
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #604 on: February 19, 2017, 01:58:37 AM »
He has done computer models, that was stated on page one.

This is on page one master evar. I could not get a recreation as we saw...I could simulate a collapse...But not a total one, not one at close to free fall, and not one into its own foot print.

No one can simulate their own NIST, and no one has...Because they have officially written they will not release the inputs for their model. This is unheard-of in a situation like this.


Yes, as I have stated before, I use pictures to demonstrate things to help people that do not have experience in that field or can speak in technical terms. It helps the brain to understand a bit, I can compute things like this in my head and understand. Someone who has no experience will likely not be able to, so it helps.

I cannot show any instances like 9/11 visually because there is none before or after that because it defies all logic, physics, and structural design/theory known.

The only example we have is a model that no one but the creators know....And I am sorry, that is not good enough for me. I refuse to trade reality for a model unless they give me the inputs. They will not though because they cannot, that will end their game. If they release the inputs, and I can create the same model with one of my programs...Then I will convert to mainstream.

Until then...I choose reality, all know physics, and centuries of structural design.
Can you at least post whatever you managed to simulate? Because, as I said, it's hard to work with something that someone else only claims to have.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #605 on: February 19, 2017, 02:03:26 AM »
it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.



#pepethefrogofpeace

« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 02:05:04 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #606 on: February 19, 2017, 02:11:27 AM »

Can you at least post whatever you managed to simulate? Because, as I said, it's hard to work with something that someone else only claims to have.

It is just files...You can't "post" it up unless you have the program. I could maybe record with my phone or something while playing.

Or if you have star-ccm+ or sim I could send you some files or inputs so you can recreate...I also think I still have the files for though not sure nastran...I did one on building 7 on star-cd in my last year of college but that is long gone.

The problem here is you are still taking my word master on the inputs...I would be no different than NIST....It is not a quick thing to create or check a model...Takes a long time.

You have to know the entire design,load stress ratio, metallurgical makeup, cert ratings, etc etc etc etc..I don't even know why I started listing things lol. Long story short, it isn't a quick thing.

If you want to get into it that deep, then we can...It's up to you.

We can also talk about whatever you want from structural dynamics on the buildings or planes to the back end of the story and anywhere in between.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 02:13:19 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #607 on: February 19, 2017, 02:22:38 AM »
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.

Heiwa,  I never thought to say this,  you might be a complete conspiracy nutter,  but at least you are up front about it. 

Did you know that Stephen Bannon is a 911 truther,  and that Donald Trump is a big fan of Alex Jones ( infowars)  famous for goblins and gay frogs, but also a 911 truther,  don't know about Jared Kushner or Stephen MIller,  but it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.   However his target will be probably be the intelligence agencies who knew in advance but did nothing,  rather than the engineering aspects of the NIST resport.

Hang about for a while,  you might get called as an expert witness :)



This isn't humorous to you as much as terrifying, is it.

Feels good man.

Sorry, but you deserve this, your attitude towards Bhs and everyone on this thread has been despicable.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #608 on: February 19, 2017, 02:38:52 AM »
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.

Heiwa,  I never thought to say this,  you might be a complete conspiracy nutter,  but at least you are up front about it. 

Did you know that Stephen Bannon is a 911 truther,  and that Donald Trump is a big fan of Alex Jones ( infowars)  famous for goblins and gay frogs, but also a 911 truther,  don't know about Jared Kushner or Stephen MIller,  but it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.   However his target will be probably be the intelligence agencies who knew in advance but did nothing,  rather than the engineering aspects of the NIST resport.

Hang about for a while,  you might get called as an expert witness :)

I do not create conspiracies or conspiracy theories. I happened to get involved in this show back in 1994 when M/S Estonia sank and killed >850 persons. The ship had hardly touched the bottom of the ocean, when the Swedish primeminister Bildt announced that the bow visor of the superstructure had fallen off sinking the ship. I suggested that hull leakage was a possibility to investigate and was immediately proclaimed a conspiracy theory creator/nutter. You see, you cannot contradict top politicians of a ruling government. If you do, you too might end up at the bottom of the sea/river/lake. That's why Main Stream Media just publish what the government wants to hear. To keep their ears dry!
 
Now, 23 years later, people that were children losing parents and family 1994 and wondering what happened are visiting my web site http://heiwaco.com to find out what really happened and why the principle of Archimedes do not apply in Sweden. Don't blame me for it.

You see Bildt just falsified history for politica reasons 1994 and asked scientists and engineers to support him (against generous pay). The legal aspects were easily swept under the carpet - no evidence of anything except that all was perfect. The conspiracy works fine 2017. Media will not touch it.

Luckily I am just an outside (scientific) observer from far away distance.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 02:44:44 AM by Heiwa »

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #609 on: February 19, 2017, 02:43:12 AM »

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.

Bull shit!
"The American Airlines Flight 11 aircraft was a Boeing 767-223ER delivered in 1987, registration number N334AA.[2] The capacity of the aircraft was 158 passengers, but the September 11 flight carried 81 passengers and 11 crew members. This was a light load at 58.2 percent capacity..." 

If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.

Not to mention the fact none of the planes would have been filled to capacity on jet fuel.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #610 on: February 19, 2017, 02:48:38 AM »
Just a point of protocol  disputeone,  I have you on ignore,  could someone please quote him if he says anything of relevance.
Rayzor, you can GFY.

I find that pretty relevant...

Not to mention I concur.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #611 on: February 19, 2017, 02:50:24 AM »
Maybe it doesn't rule out the official story, but it is very strong evidence against it. Once, but three times in one day is a mathematical impossibility.

You would have to wait longer than the entire age of the universe for anything so unlikely to happen.

Can you elaborate on your explanation of the free fall.

Specifically how the planes damaged the internal support enough to cause a collapse of the inside of the structure while leaving the outer frame unaffected. Factoring in the temperature and intensity that jet fuel can reach uncompressed in an open burn situation.

Edit. Leaving out building 7 for now.
I'm not even going to bother with numbers, because I'd probably be way off. First off, the jet fuel burned strongly for some minutes. This would allow more stuff to ignite, and it spread out over the floors which would have heated it up very quickly. Apparently some fire-proofing was knocked off, which would help heating up the supporting structure extremely quickly. The heating itself would weaken the metal, but it would also lead to heat expansion which would cause bulges in the supporting structure. It's possible that the outer support deformed a little, which in turn would mean that the compressing force of the floors above transfers into a force bending the and potentially trying to snap the supports. However, the central support exists for a reason. So after a few minutes, I expect that a lot of the bearing load would have been transferred over to the central support, which would also be really hot and heat expansion would at least cause miniature cracks in it. Any exposed metal could start rusting quite quickly due to the heat combined with a strong draft (No, I don't think the support rusted away noticeably enough). The planes would have also been shredded on impact, and the planes were made largely of aluminium. Aluminium is interesting - it burns very hot with rust, in which case it's called thermite. Molten aluminium also reacts violently with concrete, forming an explosion. Aluminium used in planes are alloys with higher strength but lower melting points - about 600 degrees celsius, enough to be molten by the jet fuel. This would further help weakening the central structure. After that, the building in general would be on fire, continuing to weaken the central structure. The outer structure would probably cool down, but remain deformed. As the central structure continued to weaken, the outer structure would be deformed ever so more due to a force which is slightly shifted from completely compressing, shifting the load back onto the central structure. Eventually the central structure would become too brittle, crack and collapse. Most of the weight of the tower would have been in the central structure, so after it started to collapse it might take a second or a few before the rest follows. This could create the kind of collapse that was witnessed.

Or maybe, the twin towers were actually weaker than official documents and schematics show? Just saying, some poor workmanship could explain a lot of the things brought up in this discussion :P
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #612 on: February 19, 2017, 03:00:50 AM »
Not bad at all, best argument all thread.

I agree that it could possibly lead to a collapse, I'll play ball with the official story it's especically the near plumb fall and acceleration of all three buildings that concerns me. If building 7 hadn't of fell maybe I wouldn't have looked into it as deeply as I have and come to the conclusions I have.

Do you agree building 7's fall at gravitational acceleration is suspicious?

If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)

This is completely leaving out the logical jumps you have to make for the hijackings, maneuvers of the plane, NORAD not shooting them down, the Pentagon "plane" crash, the invulnerable passports, the fact that the official story claims they used stolen credit cards and yet used the purchaseses to identify some of them.
Getting on the plane in the first place with box-cutters gas masks tape etc.

To me there is just too much that doesn't make sense, ironically occams razor dictates that controlled demolition and foul play are at fault.

I'm sure Bhs can get into the specifics of your post far better than I can.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #613 on: February 19, 2017, 03:03:30 AM »

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.

Bull shit!
"The American Airlines Flight 11 aircraft was a Boeing 767-223ER delivered in 1987, registration number N334AA.[2] The capacity of the aircraft was 158 passengers, but the September 11 flight carried 81 passengers and 11 crew members. This was a light load at 58.2 percent capacity..." 

If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.

Not to mention the fact none of the planes would have been filled to capacity on jet fuel.

I'll accept that correction,  nice to see you being pedantic about facts.   just don't tell me that they didn't leave a mark or were magically vaporized.   

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #614 on: February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM »
I guess this post is an answer to my reply to you as well master evar...Just a couple things

If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.

There are many different numbers and things to debunk, but you would want to have to talk numbers and many other things. If you don't want to talk numbers then I guess we have nothing to talk about.

This bugs me though...I don't like people blindly accepting things....If it isn't in your specialty no problem. But tell me this...

If you had two people of equal credentials telling you something...One had something to gain for themselves the other actually had something to lose by telling you something...Who would you listen to?

This is also the only " conspiracy theory" that I know of that has 1000s upon 1000s of PhDs and professionals in the exact industry calling bullshit...not to mention 1000s of pilots saying bullshit on just the flight dynamics alone...People in power etc etc etc...Then you have millions upon millions of the American population (over 50 percent according to the polls) that question it. Then throw in all the people of other counties, also don't forget the actual leaders of other counties that flat I say "we know it's bullshit"


This isn't your standard tin foil hat stuff


*Edit* This thread was a reply to master evar reply to dispute one about not wanting to talk about numbers. There were a few replies in the middle.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 03:14:48 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #615 on: February 19, 2017, 03:58:18 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

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

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

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

I have to put it forward, if nothing else we have conclusively proven these are not fairy tales and that

This isn't your standard tin foil hat stuff
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #616 on: February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM »
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

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

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

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 04:13:38 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #617 on: February 19, 2017, 04:20:42 AM »
Quote from: Mark Bingham flight 93
Hello mom, this is Mark Bingham
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #618 on: February 19, 2017, 04:32:41 AM »
If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.

Your argument was based on open burn temperature of Jet Fuel, which I disputed.  You didn't seem to know anything about the volatility of Jet fuel either until I corrected you. In any event  there was other material burning as well, sufficient to get temperatures up to 1000C,  as far as melting aluminium,  hell, you can melt aluminium with just burning paper.   Jet fuel started the fire.  and ensured it spread quickly.  From there on there was plenty to burn.   

Once again, you distort the facts. 

You mentioned your collapse model,  did you also model the aircraft impact and the effect that the fires would have on the inputs to the structural model?

It seems to me that without both of those inputs your structural model would be useless.  And as we know, you deny there were any planes,  you also deny the fires were hot enough to affect the structural steel.

So you were forced to conclude controlled demolition is the only choice,  without exploring if your assumptions might in fact be wrong.






Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #619 on: February 19, 2017, 04:38:48 AM »
Still worth 100× what NIST's models are worth imo.

You're an idiot if you think he didn't input the data from the OS, that's why he stated he couldn't get NIST's models results.

If you let us make our own model of a controlled demolition I guarantee it will work with reality.

Cease and desist your shillary at once, I see right through you.



Begone.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 04:47:06 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #620 on: February 19, 2017, 04:42:33 AM »
Quote from: Mark Bingham flight 93
Hello mom, this is Mark Bingham

According to his mother, that's exactly what he said. 

"
Hoglan: I was staying with my brother Vaughan on the morning of September 11th, and, uh, the phone rang.

Bingham (reconstruction): Mom... Mom, this is Mark Bingham.

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham"

"
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #621 on: February 19, 2017, 04:51:29 AM »
And it doesn't strike you as at all suspicious that he wouldn't say "hey Mum it's me?

In that situation thinking it might be the last time they spoke?

I will debate you on speculation if you are still scared to debate facts.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #622 on: February 19, 2017, 05:07:37 AM »
If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.
For some reason I have a suspicion that you did not read my post properly. I never talked about the steel reinforcements melting- I only claimed that the aluminium alloy used in planes, that have a lower melting point than pure aluminium, could have melted. And liquid metal, probably aluminium, was apparently witnessed to be dripping down the south tower.

There are many different numbers and things to debunk, but you would want to have to talk numbers and many other things. If you don't want to talk numbers then I guess we have nothing to talk about.
I didn't want to use numbers in my argument, because it would have been a lot of work and none of us knows exactly how the weight was distributed, or how hot it was, and how the damage would escalate. Basically, I don't have the numbers to discuss. I'd have to make lots of guesses, but I figured I'd probably be way off making those guesses. You're free to use numbers though. And I did end up usign the number for melting aluminium, as I didn't have to guess that and it demonstrates how easily it would have melted.

This bugs me though...I don't like people blindly accepting things....If it isn't in your specialty no problem. But tell me this...

If you had two people of equal credentials telling you something...One had something to gain for themselves the other actually had something to lose by telling you something...Who would you listen to?

This is also the only " conspiracy theory" that I know of that has 1000s upon 1000s of PhDs and professionals in the exact industry calling bullshit...not to mention 1000s of pilots saying bullshit on just the flight dynamics alone...People in power etc etc etc...Then you have millions upon millions of the American population (over 50 percent according to the polls) that question it. Then throw in all the people of other counties, also don't forget the actual leaders of other counties that flat I say "we know it's bullshit"
The biggest reason for me to believe one over the other - reasons. I assume you think that the government might be behind it, or some part of the government (back then, that is). Why would they do this? What was the motive? I don't buy that it was to have a reason to start a war or deploy troops somewhere. And the facts point towards the reason of the collapse being the planes - the collapse happened where the planes crashed, after the planes crashed. I don't see anything that defies physics. Something that defies human expectations? Sure, but nothing physics-breaking.

I agree that it could possibly lead to a collapse, I'll play ball with the official story it's especically the near plumb fall and acceleration of all three buildings that concerns me. If building 7 hadn't of fell maybe I wouldn't have looked into it as deeply as I have and come to the conclusions I have.

Do you agree building 7's fall at gravitational acceleration is suspicious?
I'll agree that it is evidence in favor of controlled demolition, but I don't think it's suspicious enough to be major evidence against structural failure due to damage.

If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)
I haven't read that experiment, could you repost or tell me where it is? And I don't know what a "plumb collapse" is, I guess it has something to do with the experiment?

This is completely leaving out the logical jumps you have to make for the hijackings, maneuvers of the plane, NORAD not shooting them down, the Pentagon "plane" crash, the invulnerable passports, the fact that the official story claims they used stolen credit cards and yet used the purchaseses to identify some of them.
Getting on the plane in the first place with box-cutters gas masks tape etc.

To me there is just too much that doesn't make sense, ironically occams razor dictates that controlled demolition and foul play are at fault.

I'm sure Bhs can get into the specifics of your post far better than I can.
Logical jumps according to one story, misunderstandings according to the other. I haven't read into the hijackings very much, but I doubt I'll find something completely physics or logic defying if I look into it. Some spooky coincidences or hints? Possibly. I might look into it later.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:10:00 AM by Master_Evar »
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #623 on: February 19, 2017, 05:10:32 AM »
Still worth 100× what NIST's models are worth imo.

You're an idiot if you think he didn't input the data from the OS, that's why he stated he couldn't get NIST's models results.

If you let us make our own model of a controlled demolition I guarantee it will work with reality.

Cease and desist your shillary at once, I see right through you.



Begone.

That picture gives me the creeps....

If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.

Your argument was based on open burn temperature of Jet Fuel, which I disputed.  You didn't seem to know anything about the volatility of Jet fuel either until I corrected you. In any event  there was other material burning as well, sufficient to get temperatures up to 1000C,  as far as melting aluminium,  hell, you can melt aluminium with just burning paper.   Jet fuel started the fire.  and ensured it spread quickly.  From there on there was plenty to burn.   

Once again, you distort the facts. 

You mentioned your collapse model,  did you also model the aircraft impact and the effect that the fires would have on the inputs to the structural model?

It seems to me that without both of those inputs your structural model would be useless.  And as we know, you deny there were any planes,  you also deny the fires were hot enough to affect the structural steel.

So you were forced to conclude controlled demolition is the only choice,  without exploring if your assumptions might in fact be wrong.

Lying once again...You didn't correct me on shit troll.

You just can't (or won't) compute that compressed jet fuel is different than non compressed. Different animal and way different temps.. you only talk about it compressed. If I wanted to burn a building down, I would not use kerosene based jet fuel. Do you know what liquid temp of jet fuel is if it has a fire burning on top of it? Do you know how hard it is to keep jet fuel burning in an open non compressed environment....Actually, on that though do you know anything besides how to be a troll?

Jet fuel is made to have to be compressed in order to ignite, so that way when it's making its way down a hot intake manifold it does pre detonate. On an internal combustion engine this damages valves, on a fan jet engine you might compressor stall or even might have a full out explosion.

Try to light a puddle of jet fuel on fire with a lit cigarette...Nope...no fire, cig will go out though

I don't know what inputs they used, no one does...They will never release them for their...errr I mean our safety. People at MIT and Berkeley have tired to recreate without avail....So have I....So have many others.

The only inputs I used was building tolerances, structural damages and possible hear from the fires. Doesn't work...

But I forgot to use magic, I don't have that patch...

Now as dispute said.....Be gone troll...Go back into whatever hole you came from.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:20:02 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #624 on: February 19, 2017, 05:14:45 AM »
If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)
I haven't read that experiment, could you repost or tell me where it is? And I don't know what a "plumb collapse" is, I guess it has something to do with the experiment?

Plumb being vertical and straight.
Level being horizontal and straight.

Here is the experiment and some supporting arguments.

I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

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

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

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

Edit formatting.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:18:22 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #625 on: February 19, 2017, 05:22:15 AM »
Lying once again...You didn't correct me on shit troll.

Wrong again.  You claimed that it was so volatile, you could leave a tank open and it would evaporate significantly in an hour.

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

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

I then corrected you.

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

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

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

Then you changed tack and said it's only volatile when compressed,  which is completely wrong as well ..   maybe I should have corrected you again.  I was feeling sorry for you at that point.

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

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

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

In any event who said it was only jet fuel burning?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:24:10 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #626 on: February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM »
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.

As for specifics of the collapse etc...I will leave that up to you of what you want to talk about.

As for the why...Well in the states they passed tons of laws that removed liberties of ours. Not to mention they were trying to go to war for a while with these counties but the public kept saying no...Then this happened, and as long as we were "getting those that did this to us" everything was a yes. It is a fact rather you agree or not that this gave the government a crutch to do whatever they wanted for a time.

Plus, if you wanted to talk about the back end of it, all the 1000s of impossible coincidences that made this possible...We can, it is no better than the official story of the collapse. Plus I haven't heard you mention building 7...Not to mention we havent even got into the other two flights.

There is much much much much more...It is one of those things that you really can't run out of things to talk about.

I will leave it up to you on what you want to talk about.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #627 on: February 19, 2017, 05:30:18 AM »
I could talk for 30 pages about why, but it is all speculation and we have been trying to avoid speculation since page one.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #628 on: February 19, 2017, 05:31:40 AM »
It's not evidence, but I found a well-written explanation for the collapse of the twin towers:
Quote
I suppose the answer to that question has to be 'no'. Clearly, you can't say that a building is safe if over 2,000 of its occupants lost their lives due to its collapse.

It really depends on how you define 'safe'. No building is totally safe - all that we can ask is that it be as safe as reasonably practicable. That means that we have to think about whether the designers back in the late 60s should have foreseen the possibility that their building would have airplanes deliberately crashed into them by terrorists who were prepared to lose their own lives in pursuit of their goals.

Since the disaster eleven years ago, a huge amount of investigation has been carried out by structural engineers into just how the building behaved following the crashes and how the towers eventually collapsed. This has involved frame by frame analysis of thousands of images of the towers backed up by computer analysis. Much of this analysis is in the public domain for anyone who cares to look and so your statement that the collapse 'defies any type of logic' has been well and truly refuted.

Whilst a lot of the analysis is pretty complicated, the basic reasons for the collapse are fairly simple and are just elementary physics.

As Quantum X described, the towers had a 'shell and core' type construction with the central core, composed of steel columns, taking the vertical load of the structure and the external skin, composed of fabricated steel sections also taking its share of the vertical load but also the bending load due to wind load on the towers.

This design allowed a large area of column free office space to be provided on each floor, important in a modern building, and it is also believed that the heavyweight cladding of the exterior, with its narrow windows, appealed to the Japanese architect who suffered from vertigo and hated the huge expanses of glass with their vertiginous views common in many skyscrapers.

The floors also played an important role in the structure as, apart from the obvious function of supporting the loads from people and office furniture, they also acted as large diaphragms effectively bracing both the external skin and the central core.

Structural engineers are largely of the opinion that the floors were the reason for the buildings eventual collapse. Whilst adequate to support all ordinary loading, they were of relatively flimsy (lightweight steel truss with concrete topping) construction and with weak connections to the core and external skin.

Another problem with the shell and core design, which was especially notable in the case of Tower No. 2 was that the concentration of building services in the centre of the building, meant that the escape stairs were very close to each other and the plane impact effectively closed off all means of escape for the people above the crash zone. Had stairs been located at each corner of the building, many of the people above may have survived.

When the planes hit the towers, they caused massive damage to the external skin, which is clear from all the photos and videos of the event. About two thirds of the columns on one side of the tower were knocked out by the impact. What is less clear, but which has been proved by computer analysis is that several of the internal floors and some of the columns of the central core would have been knocked out.

The reason that the towers didn't collapse right away following the destruction of so many load bearing members is down to the fact that the designers had incorporated a huge structural steel truss into the roofs. So, following the impact, the external wall of the building and the floors that it supported, effectively hung from this truss and the load was distributed into the damaged central core.

The towers remained stable for some time after the crashes but the heat of the fire caused by the airliners fuel (backed up by that due to the paper, timber and plastic etc in the building) caused the exposed steel members to lose their strength (steel does this at temperatures well below that at which it melts). This effect was made worse by the fact that the brittle sprayed-on fireproofing of the building had been blown off by the impact explosion.

In addition, the failure of the floors meant that the steel columns of the building, overloaded by the load transfer, damaged by the impact and weakened by the intense heat also lost the propping effect of the floors (steel members subject to compressive loads need to be held in position at regular intervals to stop them from buckling). With that combination, collapse became inevitable.

Although the causes were the same, the two towers collapsed in different ways. Tower 2, the first to fall, did so due to the failure of its external skin. Tower 1 failed due to the failure of its central core.

As soon as the collapse was initiated, the speed of that collapse is not remarkable. The towers, I believe, weighed about half a million tonnes each, which means that the weight of the sections above the collapse zone would have been something like 100,000 to 200,000 tonnes - heavier than a fully laden supertanker. Once that started moving, only a massively strong structure could have stopped it or slowed it down. Effectively, the towers 'unzipped', the huge mass of the top section forced its way through the bottom section with the relatively flimsy floors offering little resistance and the external skin (just bolted together) being pushed out of the way. The central core probably lasted longer but the removal of its lateral restraint as the floors surrounding it collapsed meant that it could no longer support its own weight.

The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

In carrying out the design of structures such as this, you have to take into account the possibility that a plane could be flown into the building and, at the time of the design, that was not that extraordinary as a plane did fly into the Empire State Building during World War II. That was an accident caused by the pilot losing his direction in low cloud and it resulted in some structural damage to the building and the deaths of some people inside it.

By the 60s, planes were a lot bigger and faster and so the worst scenario considered by the designers was that a Boeing 707 would get lost and accidentally hit one of the towers. The most realistic scenario imagined at the time would be that a plane, coming into land at one of New York's airports would be flying low and accidentally collide with a tower.

The difference between that scenario and what happened on 911 was that the planes were deliberately flown at 400mph into the towers, as opposed to the maximum 200 mph of a plane on its landing approach (planes never normally fly at such speeds so close to the ground).

That makes a huge difference because, as anyone who is familiar with dynamics knows, the energy contained by a moving object is proportional to the square of its speed and so, the planes may have hit the towers at twice the envisaged speed but will have imparted four times the energy.

There is another factor as well. Both planes were at the beginning of cross-continental journeys and were, therefore, carrying their maximum fuel load as opposed to a landing plane that would normally have much less fuel on board. Not only did that add to the volume of fuel and hence the intensity of the fire but it also meant that the wings, where the fuel is stored, acted like battering rams and, instead of being shredded by the steel columns were heavy enough to smash them out of the way.

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the World Trade Center, stated that he was not aware just how a building could be protected against a massive fuel fire and that had probably not been taken into account in the design of the fire-proofing.

The investigation into the WTC collapse did result in a large number of recommendations, not all of which have yet been implemented.

Structurally, it was realised that more structural continuity was required in skyscrapers to guard against progressive collapse - highlighting the failure of the floors within the WTC.

Means of escape were also investigated and, apart from the need to have widely spaced escape routes, as I mentioned above, the need to have protected lifts to prevent people being faced with the need to climb down 100 storeys to get to a place of safety was recognised.

The inadequacies of fire-proofing in the WTC has led to the requirement either to embed structural steel members in concrete or use some blast-resistant material such as intumescent paint (which swells to form a protective coating when subject to) heat.

So, probably the towers were as safe as they probably could be given the level of knowledge back in the 60s but modern towers should be a lot safer.
Source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1524620, reply #13 by user Martin S.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #629 on: February 19, 2017, 05:33:57 AM »
Blast resistant material they say?

Now, why would you need to blast proof a building to prevent fire induced collapse? I wonder.

Quote
The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

Also we are not arguing that it is impossible the plane crash couldn't possibly have led to a collapse.

We are arguing that the plane crash causing a plumb collapse at or near free fall is impossible.

This doesn't even begin to address building 7, please see my above post.

Edit, sorry trying to keep posts to a minimum.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:38:57 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

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