Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Argus said:

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.Apr 7, 2010  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Soft as butter...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

  • Like 2
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

14 minutes ago, Altai said:


There is an easy way to understand it. Someones should prepare small models of TTowers and we should animate the event again. 

That has been done, for WTC7 but in a more limited fashion than you envision, Altai. 

The professor, a PhD and his doctoral students, focused on NISTs suggested cause of collapse, a column failure [79]. They went as far towards NIST's position, ie. gave the benefit of the doubt, erred in favor of NIST and the result, as you all know by now, the chance of NIST's story being true is zero. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hot enough said:

That has been done, for WTC7 but in a more limited fashion than you envision, Altai. 

The professor, a PhD and his doctoral students, focused on NISTs suggested cause of collapse, a column failure [79]. They went as far towards NIST's position, ie. gave the benefit of the doubt, erred in favor of NIST and the result, as you all know by now, the chance of NIST's story being true is zero. 

 

What is known as: Argument From Authority. A type of logical fallacy.

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

I haven't looked at your video yet. Could you briefly summarize the gist of it and we can discuss it. 

 

Neil catches Buzz doing the big last step down off of the Apollo LM onto the Lunar surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

What is known as: Argument From Authority. A type of logical fallacy.

You don't understand what you have advanced. And yet, your post before this, you put forward a you tube video as an authority. Do you not see the logical disconnect? Folks have offered Popular Mechanics as experts. They are most assuredly not.

"Argument from authority

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert."

Dr Leroy Hulsey is an expert in his field. You could have done this simple bit of research yourself.

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

 

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

Okay, I just checked your link. I am familiar with that video. And I'm willing to discuss your expert's ideas on how 911 happened. Let's get 'er on!

 

I chat with crazy ol' Buzz online all the time. I'm pretty sure he actually went to the Moon. If not, he really is crazy.

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

Are you saying you don't understand the blacksmith's points or you can't explain the blacksmith's points? 

I think LCROSS pretty much put to bed the last vestiges of the Moon Hoaxers.

Question though: did the Battle of Midway happen?

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

Are you saying you don't understand the blacksmith's points or you can't explain the blacksmith's points? 

I think he's saying you can tell the blacksmith wasn't on the Moon, because the shadows are the wrong shape.

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

I think he's saying you can tell the blacksmith wasn't on the Moon, because the shadows are the wrong shape.

 

There's a lot less evidence the Battle of Midway happened than 9-11.

Yet...no conspiracy!

I wonder why???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, come on, please. 

 

Forum rule:

If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.
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. 

Edited by hot enough
edit out unnecessary rule comments
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Because nothing new on the topic has been presented in this thread.   

 

 

 

 

The UofA-F study is new. It shows the NIST/US official conspiracy theory is not only wrong, but evil. Consider the implications of this revelation that the alleged hijackers are innocent. 

Don't you think it's evil to bear false witness against innocent people?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hot enough said:

The entire 911 issue and all the resulting world conflict, world problems, "radical Islam", everything bear on this one single point, Betsy. 

1. The only fuel that was available to the alleged hijackers was jet fuel and office furnishings. They have a MAXIMUM burning temperature of 1,800F, in ideal burn conditions. There were not ideal burn conditions. US official conspiracy theory folks describe maximum burn temps in the twin towers as being around 1,400F.

2. Melting points/vaporization points

a. steel - 2,800F

b. molybdenum [Mo] 4,700F

c. vaporized steel 5,000+F

d. iron, about the same as steel

So, the only fuels available to the alleged hijackers was 1,400 degrees F short of being able to melt steel. There was molten steel, much of it, reported by many people. There are videos of the Meterorite, the famous one and there are others. These are fused agglomerations of molten steel and concrete. It is not possible that the alleged hijackers melted those metals. 

The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that the alleged hijackers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. They have been falsely accused.

The most important implication that comes to mind [there are hundreds and hundreds of very serious implications] is, who then could have melted all those metals and caused the collapse of the three towers.

 

Read the rebuttal from the article I gave.

 

You stated:

 

Quote

In a word, they have been falsely accused.

 

Again, I'm asking you:  who are they that have been falsely accused? 

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

  Such conspiracy theories (inlcuding the "official" government version) have been discussed here at length for many, many years.  

 

 

 

If you think that the US official conspiracy theory is so strong, discuss those issues that you believe have merit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Read the rebuttal from the article I gave.

 

AND BTW, answer this question that I've asked you:  who is falsely accused? 

I'm completely familiar with Popular Mechanics. There is no rebuttal in that material, Betsy. It is old and it was not accurate to begin with. If you would like to bring forward any point for discussion, I would be happy to explain it to you. 

I must have thought you were joking. I'm shocked that you don't know who has been falsely accused. Have you ever read anything about 911? 

Edited by hot enough
clearer explanation
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

If you think that the US official conspiracy theory is so strong, discuss those issues that you believe have merit. 

 

Why ?   That would just be repeating the many past discussions on the topic in this forum ?

What has changed since then ?  This forum's archive is full of such content if that is what you seek.

Lot's of other, more current "turmoil" is available from around the world.

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

I'm completely familiar with Popular Mechanics. There is no rebuttal in that material, Betsy. It is old and it was not accurate to begin with. If you would like to bring forward any point for discussion, I would be happy to explain it to you.

Yep.  You've been rebutted!

 

 

Quote

I'm shocked that you don't know who has been falsely accused. Have you ever read anything about 911? 

Never mind feeling shocked about my question.   I ask for a clear answer.  You're in a forum.

 

Who do you think are they, that have been falsely accused? 

and........

Falsely accused of what????

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Why ?  

What has changed since then ? 

Lot's of other, more current "turmoil" is available from around the world.

A new study, that will see formal release in the Spring of this year. That is new.  

All the "Lot's of other, more current "turmoil"" is turmoil that has been occasioned by the evil lies perpetrated by the real criminals on September 11, 2001. 

 

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

A new study, that will see formal release in the Spring of this year. That is new.  

All the "Lot's of other, more current "turmoil"" is turmoil that has been occasioned by the evil lies perpetrated by the real criminals on September 11, 2001. 

 

 

Really ?    The world anxiously waits for more Truther red meat.    

Lies are lies...evil or otherwise.  Get use to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Betsy. Let's give it one last try. The NIST study [do you know who NIST is and what they studied?] has been shown to be false by an in depth scientific study. Not just questions raised about the study - it has a zero chance of being true. The US government official conspiracy theory rests totally [=100%] on that study. If NIST lied about WTC7, and they most certainly did, then they lied about WTCs 1 & 2.  

A few examples; NIST lied about molten metals; they lied about explosions; they lied, and still lie about molten aluminum. [it's on their website FAQs.  

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...