Simple question... Who is it more sensible to believe?

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 11, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's his theory. The answer is one can't say it's impossible but extremely unlikely. Given that's far from the only anomaly that was allegedly caused by "descending debris" (that would be the OCT claim), there are many, many other anomalies, including multi-ton debris found 600 ft away and something that happened "naturally", the parabolic trajectory of the DESCENDING debris caused yet another tower to be globally destroyed just like a CD, another minor anomaly, so the odds IMO are less than winning Powerball. But for sure explosives destroying a building in a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition are certainly capable of doing all that, every time.
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BS Bob ... a controlled demo doesn't eject material laterally ... the internal collapse of the buildings at the impact points created a massive force that blew out sections of the curtain wall .... not exactly a classic CD like you claim huh Bob? ...

    and you still haven't expalined the "massive explosions" that separated the top portions from the lower,notwithstanding the complete impossibilty of that even happening seeing that 2 fully fuled Boeings slammed into the sections where those bombs would have had to be placed? ... think about the science of that probability Bob ...

    rant on about NIST all you want re: WTC 7 ...

    have you read of other structures badly damaged at Ground Zero because they were predominantly concrete and stone buildings built in the early 20th century? ... they suffered massive damage and fires as well but it was different construction ... but they somewhat survived and many have been repaired ... others had to be torn down ... just curioius if you know about the other many buildings at the site that suffered damage and major fires ...
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, explosives used in CDs don't have that capability but fire and gravity does. Prior to 9/11, the tallest building ever CD'd was the J.L. Hudson Department Store which stood at 439 ft. tall. The WTC towers were 1,362 and 1,368 ft tall, more than 3 times the height.

    Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure.

    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

    So CDI had to try to keep debris being expelled by explosive forces within the building's 420 ft footprint for a 439 ft tall building. The debris field for the towers was over a 600 ft radius for a 1,362 ft building with multi ton objects embedded into adjacent buildings, some damaging WTC7 over 300 ft distant and other multi ton objects found over 600 ft distant. I think for a Perfectly Planned And Executed CD (PPAECD) of a building that size and height, it's not only reasonable but quite a good job. Imagine if it failed:

    [video=youtube;f8VjFBPQm2k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8VjFBPQm2k[/video]

    But talk about BS, some actually believe that fire/damage/gravity/colliding objects could do what explosive forces used for a PPAECD can't do. Some need to know if there was a precedent for such a CD but don't ask if there was such a precedent for fire/damage/planes affecting a skyscraper. There couldn't be one because not only is there no precedent but fire/damage/planes have never caused any skyscraper to be globally destroyed in seconds or at all in the history of 40+ such incidents.

    Do you actually believe a CD for the twin towers could be characterized as a "classic CD"? Who said anything about the twin towers being a "classic CD" anyway?

    Yeah I'm thinking about the "science" and common sense. The top portion that blew from the lower portion allegedly destroyed the lower portion but observation, science and common sense shows that didn't happen.

    [video=youtube;ZjSd9wB55zk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&feature=youtu.be[/video]

    Yes I understand the facts surrounding NIST's investigation into the collapse of WTC7 are a "rant" to you. Unfortunately, they are indisputable facts. Of course you can try to dispute them but you haven't done so, so far.

    Yes isn't it amazing that not one of WTC3, 4, 5, and 6 were globally destroyed from fire/damage/colliding debris?

    WTC 3 was first partially crushed by the steel skeleton fragments from the South Tower and then further crushed by those from the North Tower. In each case the rubble, falling from as much as 1300 feet, collapsed regions spanning several floors but was arrested by the building's steel structure.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc3.html

    WTC 4 was severely damaged by fallout from the collapse of the South Tower, with all but one wing of the building having collapsed to ground level.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html

    Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

    Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires probably more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 6 did not collapse

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fluff and spam ...

    many other buildings in the block radius did not collapse after suffering debris and fire from the plane impacts and subsequent collapses .... not all buildings are designed the same ... do a little research Bob before you copy/pasta your biased sources ...

    911 research ffs ... think outside the (your) box Bob ...

    just saying ... your CD theory is preposterous ...
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it's reality.

    And I'm sure you can show what it was in the "building design" that made those 3 buildings collapse just like a PPAECD. This theoretical nonsense is a typical excuse for those who defend the OCT, that it was the "design" but no one can show why or prove it, just the usual hot air.

    You know what, I only need the videos to know all 3 buildings were a PPAECD, I don't need to do any more research than that, it's as obvious as the nose on your face. That's all a CD expert needed, one video. Regardless, everything I post in this forum is based on about 14 years worth of research. The truly biased sources are those you defend daily.

    It's not a theory, it's reality. What's preposterous is believing in ridiculous fairy tales about 3 skyscrapers being globally destroyed just like 3 PPAECDs from fire/planes/damage.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mechanical Engineer Sends Open Letter to Main Defender of the 9/11 Official Account, Zdeněk Bažant

    “This open letter is being sent to you to request that you correct your four papers on the collapse of the WTC Towers, which were published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.” — Tony Szamboti

    On June 19, 2016, Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has studied the World Trade Center collapses intensively for the past ten years, sent an open letter to Northwestern civil engineering Professor Zdeněk Bažant. Dr. Bažant is the author of four articles in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that purport to explain why the lower sections of the WTC Twin Towers provided no discernible resistance to the falling upper sections.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/265-news-media-events-mechanical-engineer-sends-open-letter.html
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, fluff and spam are the characteristics of the NIST report and other documents attempting to explain the official story.

    If fires and gravity caused those buildings to collapse, the debris would have come straight down. For the "parabolic" theory to work, some force had to start the horizontal movement. Gravity cannot.
     
  8. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    parabolic is just a trajectory path term ... gravity caused the air pressure to eject material laterally ... it really is that simple ...

    no massive bombs or mini nukes did this ... two big airliners hit the buildings and they collapsed starting at the impact points because physics took over ...
     
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By this post, you are very damn simple. This would not pass high school physics.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So it was "air pressure" caused by "gravity" that hurled multiple multi-ton objects, impaling neighboring buildings, damaging WTC7 over 300 ft distant and other multi-ton objects found 600 ft distant? In other words, air pressure can do the same job as explosives, maybe even better. And since in fairy tale land air pressure is just as good as explosives, it had to be air pressure and not explosives. And you post about "my" BS theories? Where did you get this one from? Can you show any precedent/experiment/valid computer simulation that can remotely substantiate your theory? Do you believe there's no real world precedent that shows explosives can do that?

    So we have 2 OCT theories:

    1. Colliding objects causing lateral ejections of multi-ton objects hundreds of feet distant.
    2. Air pressure causing lateral ejections of multi-ton objects hundreds of feet distant.

    And each theory is exclusive, thus eliminating any possibility that explosives did the job or could do the job (because that's preposterous thinking). In #1, the collision of objects does not cause any kind of reduction (momentary or otherwise) in the downward acceleration of the collapse wave because none is observed/measured, never mind physics.
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes ...
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that explains it.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah physics with a little help from ....

    [video=youtube;eHnLlwqiu0A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A&feature=youtu.be[/video]

    "I have revisited and extended some of my early measurements of high speed massive projectiles from the World Trade Center on 9/11. The results for the three projectiles measured: 56 mi/hr, 45 mi/hr, and 78 mi/hr. I don’t claim this is smoking-gun evidence of explosive demolition all by itself, but it is part of the puzzle and it is more compatible with the explosive demolition hypothesis than simple gravitational collapse." - David Chandler
     
  14. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that video was a whole lot of nothing ... he never addressed physics ...
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's ok, it was "air pressure", physics had nothing to do with anything and none of the videos are anything, neither is physics. I understand your mentality completely. There's nothing for you in this section of the forum, so why do you post here? I don't believe anyone needs to be reminded over and over again what the OCT is all about, most posters here are fully aware of how that fairy tale goes.
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    most posters Bob? ... really/


    and back to physics ... do you have the math to show that multi-ton pieces of material can't be ejected laterrally by the air pressure created when the building was coming down? ... were they exterior facade pieces just supposed to fall off and drop? ...are you familiar with air compressors Bob? ...

    oh and a video I just found but don't want to start a new threadd so I will just drop it here ...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah really. Why do you question that most posters are aware of the OCT, you believe most know nothing about it? Why would they be posting here if they were unaware?

    It's your claim that's what happened, it's your BOP to prove it, it isn't my BOP to prove that didn't happen or couldn't happen. I can ask you a similar question, do you have the math to show that multi-ton pieces of material can't be ejected laterally by explosives? From your post(s), it seems you believe explosives can't do that but air pressure could. So it sounds like you believe explosives don't generate air pressure or insufficient air pressure but collapsing buildings do. So CDs don't work then?

    Do you expect them to FALL and DROP all the way to New Jersey?

    Yeah is that what you think was used to eject these multi-ton objects over 600 ft?

    That has nothing to do with air compressors or multi-ton objects being ejected laterally, perhaps you believe it does? I've seen that video before a couple of times, it's not new. What I didn't read is the write up from the anonymous author at Live Leak. The writer says "WTC building 7,partially consumed by fire,melting the beams which then resulted in it's collapse". Is that what you think happened to WTC7, the fire melted beams at WTC7 which resulted in its collapse? The guy also says "shown in this vid is a direct ground shot of a large portion of the building missing at the bottom". I had to go through the video a couple of times but I can't see any "large portion of the building missing at the bottom". Do you see it? If you do, please point out where in the video you see that.
     
  18. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is one of the guys you buy into ... still no physics ... just another truther crank ...

    I don't owe you any math Bob because you do not understand math ...

    when you can produce an ounce of explosive evidence, I'll will start to educate you on math ...

    *sorry* the Chandler vid didn't load ...
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean someone who actually knows what he's talking about, yeah, not for you.

    Not for the OCT, it uses its own physics.

    Yeah that's it take over the name calling from your exiled like minded buddy. It worked so well for him.

    No you don't and I didn't ask you for any nor am I interested in any from you.

    Running a near 4.0 GPA in math as a math major back in the day, it must have been my professors who didn't understand.

    For you, even if it exploded in your face you would deny the evidence. You don't need any.

    Keep your day job, comedy is not for you either.

    That's ok, you don't need it, it's not for you.
     
  20. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    and even better question,why would people believe the government and the media and their silly version of unproven events over witnesses who heard explosions and wound up dying in mysterious deaths afterwards,many of them being very credible in the fact they were firefighters experienced in explosives ESPECIALLY since the government has a very long history going back DECADES of lying to the american people and especially since politicians in washington commit crimes everyday we go to jail for but they get off scott free for.
     
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of all it has been pointed out many times that These architects and engineers are not who they claim.

    It is a website open to anyone and everyone who wishes to join and sign their petition. Anyone can CLAIM to be an architect or engineer and that is all that is necessary to join this silly group.

    Second it is not a few anonymous internet people disputing these clowns it is the entire open identified community of acrhitects and engineers disputing them
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's called indoctrination and/or cognitive dissonance. As you can see, there are several fanatical OCT defenders in this forum alone. The fanatics will never ever question one single thing about the OCT and defend even the most minor OCT claims and of course, every single OCT storyteller. There is not one single verifiable/provable fact that any expert can publish contradicting the OCT that they will accept as fact or cause them to question the OCT. The credentials of all these people (almost 2,600) have been thoroughly verified and are verifiable:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/signature...supporters/U/EasonCrossAlexandriaVAUS.xml.txt

    Many of these people's credentials are also verifiable, some are quite well known:

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/
    http://www.consensus911.org/panel-members/
    http://www.consensus911.org/honorary-members/
     
  23. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The claims of AE911truth are not verifiable and never have been.

    On the other hand it is fact that AE911truth is open to any and everyone. This means they are just general joe six packs with opinions.

    Their claims do not and never have stood up to peer review process by architects and engineers.

    All this is true for the other twooferidiot websites
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're so extremely convincing. I especially like the terms "joe six packs" and "twooferidiot websites", they just add so much more credibility to your post. Thanks anyway for all that but I'll take what all those people have to say over the US government in a heartbeat. I would also include you but you're of no significance.
     
  25. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok they may be colorful terms but they are accurate.

    It was proven long ago that anyone can join with no verification of any background claims.

    It is not a website of architects and engineers but merely fastfood workers, wal mart employees and any other job you can think of.

    Sorry you've been had and at least the government based it's conclusions on evidence.

    You do not
     

Share This Page