Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Where do you get the 10 seconds from, did you have some special camera that saw through the massive debris cloud?

Why was there a massive debris cloud? Pancake collapses don't create massive debris clouds. The pyroclastic flows illustrate that the towers were blown up. A gravity collapse doesn't hurl 20 ton sections of steel far out from the footprint.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LoL the most scientific approach from the state funded conspiracy theorists was "We dont need to research anything because we will believe in what we see."  and another scientific approach was "Acc

All the "adults" flee the topic when science is put forward and a 16 year old young lady describes all their mendacious ways to a T. She points out their illogic, beautifully, and incisively, and all

You insult yourself, B_C. Badly, repeatedly, advancing falsehoods you know are falsehoods. That says much about you. Do you think it says anything good? With all the science that has been put for

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No.

So you're saying no aircraft were involved in 9-11?

:) 

What I am saying is,

It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. 

Proof one: The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. 

 

Edited by hot enough
make it clear for a poster
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Please provide your source. 

You are the one quoting NIST, obviously you have the source to be quoting - page 40 & 41. Read it, the details are there as well as in the FAQ they created in 2011 (update 2012).

 

Concerning you blowing up the towers theory, how long did it take to rig the explosives in these 3 towers?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ?Impact said:

You are the one quoting NIST, obviously you have the source to be quoting - page 40 & 41. Read it, the details are there as well as in the FAQ they created in 2011 (update 2012).

 

Concerning you blowing up the towers theory, how long did it take to rig the explosives in these 3 towers?

The rigging of the so-called explosives would have had to occurred in 1969-70. George Bush Jr was getting kicked out of college about then...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You are the one quoting NIST, obviously you have the source to be quoting - page 40 & 41. Read it, the details are there as well as in the FAQ they created in 2011 (update 2012).

You didn't just pull the "40% longer than free fall out of the air or your ******. You advanced the falsehood, you defend your falsehood. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

The rigging of the so-called explosives would have had to occurred in 1969-70. George Bush Jr was getting kicked out of college about then...

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You didn't just pull the "40% longer than free fall out of the air or your ******. You advanced the falsehood, you defend your falsehood. 

No, i pulled it out of the NIST report you are citing. Did you even read the report, or are you just repeating stuff you read on conspiracy sites?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, i pulled it out of the NIST report you are citing. Did you even read the report, or are you just repeating stuff you read on conspiracy sites?

Then, quote your source and  provide a link, so people can see that you know what you are talking about. 

There are numerous style manuals that can teach you how to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Then, quote your source and  provide a link, so people can see that you know what you are talking about. 

There are numerous style manuals that can teach you how to do that.

 

So you're saying that there were no aircraft involved in the 9-11 attacks?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hot enough said:

Then, quote your source and  provide a link, so people can see that you know what you are talking about. 

Why would you need a link, you are the one that brought up the comment about NIST and free fall. Obviously you have the link already. As I stated, it is on page 40 & 41 of the report, that would be section 3.6. In the FAQ it is #11. What clearer citation do you need? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To start with in response to Hot, in fact the report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology explains how high-temperature fires started by jet fuel caused the buildings' outer columns to bow in, leading to the buildings' collapse NOT melt.

The report in fact  concluded that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that if this had not occurred the WTC would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings so they collapsed.

Now let's re-examine the issues I referred to in a previous article Hot will not respond to using alternative sources to again speak directly to h is allegations and offer alternative explanations.

My information I will now refer to is a synopsis of article that can be found at http://skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html.  I

have summarized it in direct response to the allegations of Hot.

1-Free fall

As Impact and others have tried to explain the towers did not fall 'at free fall speed'. The videos clearly show debris from the towers fell faster than the towers themselves proving the towers didn’t free fall.

2-Planned Explosion(s)/Demolitions,  Bombs

In regards to the allegation the buildings were brought down by explosives, photographs show the walls around the impact sites in fact bended before the collapse and other photographs and videos showed that  that the tops of the towers were tilting several degrees before they fell. That is fact. What is also fact is that even more videos and photos showed without any doubt that the actual collapse commenced around the impact point. Furthermore controlled demolitions will collapse from the bottom not from the top. The evidence clearly shows the towers collapsed from above the points of impact and then went on to pancake down onto the floors below them. Further the projector which has been proven shows the South tower didn’t collapse straight down it was only the North Tower that did.

The conspirators have assumed that evidence of fire in an elevator shaft or on the ground floor necessarily meant bombs were set off there. This assumes explosions had to have occurred there but evidence of fire is not and has never been by itself proof of bombs. Assuming bombs then caused the fire is a leap without evidence and this is what conspirators do. They leap to conclusions without evidence of cause and effect that there has been. What makes the controlled demolition theory unlikely is that we now the bottom floors did not collapse first. We also know from other demolition projects that have taken down buildings in controlled explosions that it takes weeks to place the explosives. When a building is prepped for explosives it is fact that any of the beams will be cut through by about 90% because the explosion itself once the beams are pre-cut only have break a small bit of steel and in so doing guarantee the path and pace of the fall. That well known knowledge of how controlled demos work would tell anyone you could not keep a building full and prep it like that without anyone noticing.

Well according to the conspirators they claim with the Towers filled with their people, no one, not one person noticed government agents preparing the demolition. They believe this which is another leap to conclusion not based on  fact but assumption that the agents were invisible because the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Emergency Management had offices in Building 7 and because photos of Building 7 show the three sides not damaged by the collapse of the North Tower. How ever there are photographs of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, and show that this whole side was damaged and engulfed in smoke.

The fire departments and firemen at the scene and arson investigators are also all in on the conspiracy because they claim fire brought down the buildings. This is the problem with conspiracy theories. First they see CIA agents working invisibly, then the cast of people in on the deception grows until it covers firemen, police officers, victims of the actual tragedy. Imagine the thousands of firemen and policeman who died and the others now permanently injured or scarred for life or dying of lung cancer from the exposure all these years later-according to conspirators they are all either dupes and idiots or lying.

Now even if you were to suspend all logic and make a leap to decide bombs went off and the explosions as they call them were controlled, ask these conspirators what proof they have the bombs set off in the North Tower as they claim were NOT set off by al-Qaeda operatives. Why must it be the Bush regime? Read back the response to me. The thread starter on this thread lectures people who the real conspirator is-George Bush and his cronies with zero proof. But hey why start now and get any.

How about this fact- we know as a fact that with controlled demolitions, detonating devices will weaken the major support points in the  building being taken do wn at the SAME time. This necessarily means once the denotations go off and collapse begins, EVERY part of the building simultaneously in the same motion then free-falling to the ground. As I stated earlier in response to the freefall claim the footage of the collapses, clearly shows that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings remained at the initial stages  initially stationary.  As was also proven by the footage and I mentioned earlier the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 clearly shows that the tower never fell straight down and instead, this tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle. So this means not only was their no free fall but no possible way the demolition was controlled.

None-the-less the conspirators ignore these basic rules of how controlled demolition and physics work. Most importantly as the conspiracy theorist did is deny there were any aircraft that crashed into the buildings. He leaps to the conclusion again with no evidence that all the aircraft pictures are fake.

Well of course If they were not, if in fact aircraft did fly into the towers as so many reported and so much video and photographs show this would then explain why there was at difference in how the two  towers collapsed and that difference could be explained not by the nonsensical assumption of demolition because conspirators can’t tell the difference between top-down and bottom-up movement, but also because if different craft hit each tower this could explain that the different way each airplane struck the buildings led to the differences in how each collapsed.

What we now know is that the first plane flew in the North Tower  between the 94th to 98th floors, head on, making its way in almost  to the core of the building while the second jet collided into the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but came in in at an angle, so it didn’t burrow or drill or dig in like the first craft but made a jagged angular motion that caused severe  structural damage to all of the entire northeast corner of the building.

Of course the conspirators would have you believe not only the fire departments that responded and investigated are in on the conspiracy with the Federal Aviation Authority and the hundreds of architects and reconstruction engineers who also examined the path and angles of each craft.

3. Melting Steel

The thread starter and 9-1l conspirators claim the steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall. Well some of us have explained there was no free fall or controlled demolition. There is also proof to indicate the temperature could not have become hot enough to melt steel. At best I t got hot enough to compromise the strength of the steel but certainly not melt it. .

Better still and if you want to ignore Impact who has tried to explain the fundamental properties of steel, just go to Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, M.I.T.. There you will find Dr. Thomas Eager happy to explain that steel will lose 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. As well if you had 90,000 liters of jet fuel  that after penetrating the tower(s) then ignited other combustible materials, i.e.,  rugs, curtains, furniture, and paper, which would then continue to  burn after the jet fuel was exhausted- this would  raise temperatures above 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and spread the fire throughout the building it would not melt the steel.

There would however be temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses which would cause them to sag, strain and leading to the splintering or fracturing of the angle clips that would have otherwise held them to the vertical columns. This would then explain that when one truss failed, there was then a domino effect with other trusses failing, the floor would collapse on the one below it and as each floor collapsed with the weight of the ones above it a pancaking effect  of collapse would have ensued.

There is zero proof of fire to prove het so hot it would melt steel. The conspirators claim  fused steel beams were not found because they were whisked away for recycling so quickly that they couldn't be examined properly. No one person would have noticed before they were taken away that they were fused. Not one because either they were all in on the conspiracy or all idiots. Clearly they say the removal as because of the need to cover up. Like most conspiracy theorists another obvious explanation can not be possible, i.e., there was no friggin evidence room big enough to hold the steel from two 1,300 foot-high buildings and a 47-story structure!

4. Nanothermites Were Used To Control the Demolitions

The written explaination,9/11 and the Science of Controlled Demolitions “ by Chris Mohr explains in detail how nonsensical the controlled demolition theory is as is the assumption nanothermites were used:

He raised these issues that debunk this theory:

·         If 4500 degree nanothermites were used to pulverize almost every inch of every concrete floor, then how could there have been millions of sheets of paper with an ignition temperature of only 451° raining down on the sidewalks?

·         If 4500 degree nanothermites were used extensively even at the top to cause a supposed upward explosion, then why were first responders able to walk over the wreckage less than an hour after the Tower collapses?

·         If there were 2800 degree rivers of molten steel in the debris, then why do NASA thermal images show maximum temperatures in the rubble of only 1400°?

·         If the debris pile had 2800 degree temperatures, then why were firefighters able to pour millions of gallons of water all over it and not trigger the deadly thermal explosions that are caused when water comes in contact with molten steel or iron?

·         If nanothermites pulverized everything, then why did the debris pile include a 13-story high facade?

·         If classic controlled demolitions create minimal damage to adjacent structures, then why did the Verizon Building suffer $1.4 billion in damages?

·         If the lateral ejection of beams were caused by explosive nanothermites, then there would have been deafening 140 db sounds that can’t be muffled by more than a few db or you lose the explosive force of the shock wave itself.

·         If the South Tower tilted 22° at first, then controlled demolition experts could not have righted it mid-collapse.

·         If nanothermites were used, then they would have spontaneously detonated at well under 1000° F. and would not have been controllable; no signal receiving device could have survived the fires and continued to receive the destruct command.

·         If there had been large explosions prior to the collapse, then they would have been a part of the seismic record, and they were not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rue said:

3. Melting Steel

The thread starter and 9-1l conspirators claim the steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall. Well some of us have explained there was no free fall or controlled demolition. There is also proof to indicate the temperature could not have become hot enough to melt steel.

Not a one of the scientists, architects, engineers, ... and me, who find great fault with the US official conspiracy theory and the notions its anti-truther supporters believes or "claim the steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse ... .

Rue: "There is also proof to indicate the temperature could not have become hot enough to melt steel".

That's precisely the point. Temperatures can never, ever become hot enough to melt steel, or molybdenum, or to vaporize steel and vaporize lead or create molten iron. 

But these molten metals were all there at WTC;  molten metals that never should or could have been at WTC. The alleged hijackers ONLY fuel, jet fuel, cannot reach temperatures close to the temperatures need to have melted these metals.

The following link shows pictures of vaporized steel. 

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

The following link, below, describes the FEMA report in more detail.

I. Physical Evidence

I-A. The 2002 FEMA Report
 

New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13]
 

Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

“teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538°C] – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” [15]

In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F). [17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].” [18]

 

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

 

Edited by hot enough
fix wonky formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Rue said:

the National Institute of Standards and Technology

There is currently a two year study of WTC7 being conducted at University of Alaska, Fairbanks. It is scheduled for total completion in May 2017. The study is essentially finished and in preliminary reports, the lead professor/engineer said, when asked by a lawyer, and I paraphrase,

Lawyer: On a scale of one to a hundred what are the chances the official NIST story of the collapse of WTC7 is true and accurate?

Professor: Zero.

Lawyer: If a graduate student of yours submitted such a report would you flunk him?

Professor: Yes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, hot enough said:

There is currently a two year study of WTC7 being conducted at University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Yes, Richard Gage's truther organization has funded a couple of grad students to do some finite element analysis of WTC 7. We will see what they conclude when they actually write their reports. So far the only thing I have seen is the data model for their analysis, and I am not about to download a multi-gigabyte dataset for some software I don't have nor the computer resources to run it on. At least this is a step forward for the truthers, it wasn't long ago that one of Gage's prominent "researchers" (Stephen Jones) was making statements like Building 7 was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission's reports.  Gage liked to repeat that claim, until it was pointed out to him that if he indeed had read the reports he was criticizing he would find that WTC 7 was in fact discussed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hot enough said:

Then, quote your source and  provide a link, so people can see that you know what you are talking about. 

There are numerous style manuals that can teach you how to do that.

So you are saying no aircraft hit those buildings. Did they  or didn't they? Simple question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Your first sentence is a major prevarication or it illustrates just how poorly misinformed you are, Impact.

Then tell me if I'm misinformed, who is paying for those grad students? It is clearly identified that A&E Truthers are, and if you go to the web page for the study, most of the links bring you to the A&E Truther site. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So you are saying no aircraft hit those buildings. Did they  or didn't they? Simple question.

1. What are the temperatures reached in a blast furnace?

On 2/27/2017 at 0:37 PM, hot enough said:

How long did the fires burn within the twin towers compared to fires in other comparable buildings that burned, some totally engulfed in in intense flames for 15 to 23 hours and they never collapsed?

 

Wilber: Did anyone dump 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on those fires that lasted 15-23 hrs? If not, the comparison is meaningless.

hot enough:  I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked you, but please do explain why the comparison is meaningless, Wilber.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Then tell me if I'm misinformed, who is paying for those grad students? It is clearly identified that A&E Truthers are, and if you go to the web page for the study, most of the links bring you to the A&E Truther site. 

I told you you are misinformed or a prevaricator. 

The initial post in the thread stated" the lead professor/engineer said,". The post right before your illustration of how you are misinformed or a prevaricator says, "Professor". Anyone who tries to fake that he/she has some credentials and knowledge should at least be informed enough to know who is doing the study, so that he/she doesn't look so misinformed or a prevaricator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Imagine the force of that sucker coming down. All that friction... like a giant mosh pit.

Friction... heat... pulverization... then everything compressed into a dense, compacted pile.

"heat", yes indeed, heat that reached thousands of degrees above the melting point of steel, a heat that had no legal/legitimate reason for being there. A heat that was provided by nanothermite, which the alleged hijackers had no access to, it being a US developed [Lawrence Livermore Lab] in the 1990s, US patented, non-commercially available, high grade US military explosive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Then tell me if I'm misinformed, who is paying for those grad students? It is clearly identified that A&E Truthers are, and if you go to the web page for the study, most of the links bring you to the A&E Truther site. 

Each of your posts get more and more desperate. It is being funded by individuals from all over the world who support the work of professional architects, engineers, scientists, scholars of all kinds. 

What are your credentials?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The initial post in the thread stated" the lead professor/engineer said,". The post right before your illustration of how you are misinformed or a prevaricator says, "Professor". 

Your point? Grad students are supervised by a professor, do you not know how the academic system works?

27 minutes ago, hot enough said:

It is being funded by individuals from all over the world who support the work of professional architects, engineers, scientists, scholars of all kinds. 

Yes, I expect Richard Gage takes in a lot of donations. Not a bad gig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 911 Omission Comission

=============

 

Indeed, the omissions are so numerous they could fill a book, and do -- David Griffin's 339-page Omissions and Distortions. Here we list only some of the more egregious omissions, falsehoods, and contradictions in the Report. In the following we use 'Report' to refer to the entire Report including the Notes section.

Omissions

Indeed, the omissions are so numerous they could fill a book, and do -- David Griffin's 339-page Omissions and Distortions. Here we list only some of the more egregious omissions, falsehoods, and contradictions in the Report. In the following we use 'Report' to refer to the entire Report including the Notes section.

Omissions

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...