Thoughtless WTC Conclusions

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Mar 2, 2019.

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. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yet here you are quoting and replying to my posts day after day.

    Yeah, you're not interested. Maybe you'll believe that one day. If you're not interested put me on ignore then. That'll fix that right up.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    For me, the evidence is overwhelming that plane impact damage and fires brought down the buildings. For you there is and never will be any evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory you believe in.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "Can sound like high explosives" eh?

    Can you post eyewitness testimony were they say they heard "explosions due to high explosives" and how they know the difference between those and other explosions?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LMAO
    Guessing games? Nah, I gave you the benefit of a doubt and an opportunity to show off your briliance.

    Gam, 3 buildings all suffered simultaneous global loss of support.
    Its impossible for fire or any other natural cause to do that.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah I can tell.

    Your "logic" leaves a lot to be desired. It seems to serve only one purpose, to defend the OCT at all costs.

    You sure are, except there's no reason to. The most likely realistic option for explosions are explosives, the most realistic option you desperately want to avoid.

    No such luck. I've always told you I use you for my agenda. Thanks for your help.

    That's the OCT in a nutshell. Just post the link to the 9/11 Commission Report and especially the NIST reports.

    That's illogical. The OCT IS a conspiracy theory, one you believe is fact and one I know is a fairy tale made for the gullible. What I know is also true and well supported by overwhelming evidence is the conspiracy to portray the OCT as fact and suppress or demonize anything that questions or contradicts it. The method of destruction of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11 is not conspiracy theory, it's merely collapse theory. And the NIST reports that promotes one collapse theory is based on proven fraud so it is an invalid theory. OTOH the collapse theory based on controlled demolition is well supported by not only deductive reasoning, physics (and other sciences), history, eyewitness testimony and expert testimony but also by video and physical evidence, among other things.
     
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it is NOT impossible because it ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

    For starters they were NOT "simultaneous". Try looking up the meaning of the term next time.

    Secondly the supports on the towers themselves were seriously DESTROYED by the plane impacts which MASSIVELY INCREASED the LOADS on the remaining supports. Those remaining supports where then subjected to UNCONTROLLED HEAT EXPOSURE to the point where they WEAKENED beyond their factor of safety and failed.

    Building 7 was an UNCONVENTIONAL building structure that was subjected to UNCONTROLLED HEAT EXPOSURE because of the tower collapses. The FAILURE of one beam caused a cascading collapse of the rest of the building.

    Too bad that NONE of the Conspiracy truthers understand even the basics of Applied Math and Strengths of Materials.

    Then again if they did they would NOT be truthers.
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bobby's a mind reader now?

    And yours seems to be to defend the demolition conspiracy at all costs.

    There's is no forensic/physical evidence of demolition charges used. That's a fact. Without this evidence your belief in them is fantasy.

    :roflol:

    Just post the forensic/physical evidence of demolition charges that you believe in so much.

    No, it's not.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They did? You mean all three buildings each lost all connections and support from ground level to top in the same instant?

    That's idiotic.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey Koko, you missed post #153
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as it 'poured' down the shaft, tell us how that happens, how do you get a fireball from pouring a fuel that is hard to light down a shaft.
    Not so, not in a crowded real world.
    Oh yes I do!
    Show me pictures of everything that was damaged so I can see if there was enough damage to cause a failure. What fires in WTC2?.
    I did better I posted a video clip of high explosives several times and you conveniently pretend nothing has been posted.
    I'm sure you believe that. LOLOLOL
    You dont know that is what happened. Oh, think you do? Post dont and stop vanishing everytime I ask for your evidence.
    but the fires had mostly went out in wtc 2 because the sprinklers were working
    I missed nothing.
    again I missed nothing you failed to respond to my rebuttal. 'again'
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but that's not my agenda, you are thoroughly confused. Despite reading hundreds of my posts and posting exactly what my agenda is, even one very recent post, it seems you're still clueless.

    There's no forensic/physical evidence supporting the OCT. That's a fact. Without this evidence your belief in the OCT is fantasy. Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST skipped that step in their "investigations", remember?

    Cute childish cartoon but cartoons are for children. Aren't you past grade school? Cartoons do nothing to support an argument, in fact , they do just the opposite.

    I post what I want to post, not what you dictate I should post. As often posted, my objective is not to try to support every theory out there. That the 3 towers were demolished via controlled demolition is the only possibility left when no one can prove any other cause. And that's because only controlled demolition is fully capable of totally destroying those 3 towers in the manner they were destroyed. That's been proven many times in the real world. No other possible known cause can accomplish that. No other cause has ever been shown to do that in any possible way. It's simple deductive reasoning and common sense. Try it sometime.

    Deductive reasoning and common sense are 2 forms of universally accepted logic, whether you like it or not.
     
    Eleuthera and Kokomojojo like this.
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's something I came across. It has a theory I hadn't thought of.

    https://jamesperloff.com/2018/06/22/what-struck-the-twin-towers-revising-my-outlook/
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------
    In addition to modeling the nosecone after a missile’s nose (as suggested in the imaginary dialogue), and adding military armor (which would have maintained better fuselage integrity at high speed), could the drones’ designers have substituted other materials for aluminum in parts of the crafts? The best way to break steel is with something stronger than steel. Titanium is both stronger than steel and lighter than aluminum. Boeing engines are made primarily from titanium, which is one reason these engines survive crashes better than other components. Planes can in fact be constructed almost entirely from titanium, which is precisely what Lockheed did with the SR-71 it built for the Air Force.

    It is not my intention to assert that the 9/11 drones were made from titanium— building a titanium 767 from scratch would present extreme challenges. Perhaps even more importantly, titanium is difficult to destroy. This would have made the drones hard to obliterate after penetration, and I’m not aware of evidence that significant titanium fragments were discovered at the 9/11 crash sites.

    Nevertheless, in addition to a rigid nose, I think it worth considering if the architects utilized an alloy of titanium, Kevlar, or some other hardening substance as the leading edge of the wings and tails to ensure full penetration.
    ------------------------------------------------
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's something else I came across.

    9/11 Laser Guided



    This might turn out to be a doctored video created by some public-relations agency paid by the government to cause confusion. The monochromatic wavelength of light is presented as the explanation for the camera's being able to pick up a beam of light hitting the tower just before the plane hit which supposedly guided the drone plane to the tower.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=mon.....69i57j0l5.6294j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    I have no idea if this is real, or not. I'm just posting it to get opinions.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We know the drones that struck the towers were modified, engines if nothing else for south tower. So it's very possible that they were modified in other ways.

    Laser guidance has been part of the military arsenal since before 911.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The overwhelming evidence, the velocities far exceeding VMO prior to and at impact, the uncanny accuracy and exact target locations, the ease of penetration into the buildings and the fact that there was either no attempt to identify the any of the recovered physical airplane debris or it was covered up, the insanely ridiculous and impossible fairy tale about the alleged hijacker "pilots" and "cell phone" calls, among many other highly suspicious factors, all point to the fact that these were not standard commercial aircraft. What they actually were is all speculative.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Would the impact of a standard commercial aircraft into a skyscraper look like this?



    At 1.36 (also previous but here is the most dramatic) it looks like most of the plane disappears into the building before there's any sign of impact.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah I know, it makes little sense, the entire official fairy tale makes little sense. It would be nice if some trustworthy scientists took up that project as thoroughly as WTC7.
     
  19. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't think you'd have to go too far. I mean, an NTSB air accident investigator should be able to see right away that that can't be a commercial aircraft.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That may be true but that's not enough. For the same reason that any fool should be able to tell that WTC7 was a controlled demolition the minute he/she sees the videos. But you need a thorough investigation and a detailed analysis/report refuting that narrative since the US government makes their phony narrative official and uses it to commit genocide and other human rights atrocities, including assaulting the Constitution under pretext that their 9/11 narrative is accurate and justifies such an agenda. To be sure, nothing justifies such an agenda not even if that narrative is accurate.
     
  21. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I agree with you about WTC 1 and WTC 2 but, WTC 7 has fewer indicators that need explanation. Prove 7 collapse was not as NIST describes it and that calls into question all the other explanations. Once 7 is shown to have been the subject of controlled demolition that indicates a high probability that 1 and 2 were likewise assisted by a controlled demolition.

    WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft. it suffered no damage to the main structure, other superficial damage had no effect of the collapse, there was no fuel to blame, the 'fires' that apparently got hot enough to affect the integrity of the steel frame are never seen, all that is ever seen is 'smoke; and a lot of that was dust swirling in vortices at the south face corners.

    The collapse of 7 was clearly defined as being at near free-fall acceleration and there was nothing to obscure the video's. Later, as with 1 and 2, seismic recordings detailed both the explosions and the fall of the structure as two separate events and quite simply, to regard it as a controlled demolition is the greater probability. Those that fail to see the inherent weakness in the OCT story have clearly no ability to analyse what they see and are lacking in any common sense!
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't disagree with anything you posted. Having said that we still need incontrovertible scientific proof that the official story is a bunch of crap, we can't just rely on "it's obvious" even if it is obvious. That was the objective of the Hulsey study even though WTC7 was obviously a controlled demolition and so were the twin towers upon closer inspection.

    The NIST "investigation" and resulting report/conclusion for WTC7 was proven by the Hulsey study to be so incredibly shoddy (i.e. fraudulent) and unscientific that one should conclude that the NIST report for the twin towers is totally untrustworthy as well (all indicators show that to be true even without the WTC7 study). But again, it's the same idea, we still need incontrovertible scientific proof about the twin towers as well. The airplane anomalies would be an offshoot of such a study.

    And this is the purpose of the petition for a Special Grand Jury investigation. A true investigation would open up a can of worms with respect to the entirety of the official 9/11 narrative.

    For the moment we are being (rightfully) distracted by the pandemic and the worldwide police brutality/racism protests but 9/11 will not go away despite all the efforts to try to sweep it under the rug using propaganda tools such as "conspiracy theory" and the idiotic "troofer" meme.

    The Request for Correction submitted to NIST is due a response by 8/14/20 so let's see what NIST intends to do about it. I'm guessing they will try to ignore it because they have no reasonable way to tackle it. And that means it will eventually end up in the courts. Anyway that's just my opinion of course.
     
    ProVox likes this.
  23. undertheradar

    undertheradar Newly Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    43
  24. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here is a new video of a model I just found:

    WTC 9/11 Crash Model Test


    Since we cannot find data on how the perimeter columns got thinner toward the top I do not see how he could incorporate that into this model.

    It is certainly interesting though .
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I found this really disappointing from a civil engineer.

     

Share This Page