911 Theories.....Are there any facts?

Discussion in '9/11' started by 911Defender, Oct 30, 2016.

  1. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah, really brilliant aren't they? They can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

    But you can CLAIM the progression was pancaking. ROFLMAO

    psik
     
  2. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    NIST didn't need to go any further, anyone with a working brain can see that once those buildings started to collapse nothing was ever going to stop it.

    I don't need to claim it pancaked, the footage is indicative of a pancaking collapse, and I've linked you a picture showing pancaked floors in the basement of the towers.
     
  3. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact is building 7 came down. Straight down, as did the towers......completely different designed buildings, yet same result. They fell into their own footprint.....not a like occurrence regardless of the how and whys. Only explosives can account for those reactions. Concrete isn't pulverized midair by virtue of falling, nor are sections of a building catapulted from a falling structure....look at each of your videos....not one shows the destructive results of the 911 event. Not one.....And what about the fact that no skyscraper in history had ever fallen prior to 911 due to a fire or deliberate bombing?
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense, NIST was required to fulfill its primary objectives:

    The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:

    * why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;


    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2006/09/nists-world-trade-center-investigation

    NIST was required to go as far as necessary to determine HOW these 3 buildings collapsed. NIST failed to do that for ALL 3 buildings, and ADMITTED to its failure for the twin towers in a footnote.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To continue with these nonsensical OCT defensive claims.

    Except none of the buildings "collapsed", they were all fully destroyed just like any perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition. No fire, damage or both or even an earthquake or failed CD can cause a steel frame building to be fully destroyed exactly like a perfectly planned and executed CD. If that were true it would be cheaper to set one on fire, wait an hour or so and watch it fully destroy itself within itself.

    The footage is indicative of a complete destruction, there is no footage that shows "pancaking" for any of the 3 towers, especially not WTC7 which the footage shows came down nearly in one piece. Even the OCT denies "pancaking", NIST called it a "progressive gravitational collapse" which is a generic term that includes CDs. As to the twin towers, David Chandler describes it accurately as the title indicates "North Tower EXPLODING":

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

    Anyone with a working brain can see the OBVIOUS.
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    thats because it wasnt in the tower footprints, it was spread all the way to jersey!
     
  7. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And they did. The towers were bought down due to fire heating/sagging the floor trusses, which bowed in the external columns (as seen in multiple pictures and videos) until they failed. That was the collapse initiation. That's all NIST needed to for the towers.

    WTC7 had a floor failure due to heating of the floor beams pushed and dislodged a key girder supporting the floor on the 13th floor on Column 79. The floor fell, which pancaked 9 floors below it, leaving column 79 with no lateral support for 9 floors. It buckled under the weight of the stories above it, and started an internal progressive failure of columns (again as seen in video footage), like a row of dominos, until enough of the internal supports had fallen away that the external shell of the building could not stand on its own and failed too.

    Easy.
     
  8. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh right! The concrete was totally irrelevant during the 28 years the buildings were standing. :roll:-

    psik
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's all they needed for YOU. Kevin Ryan said it best: "The most fundamental question about 9/11 is why were the WTC towers completely destroyed and NIST does not attempt to answer it. And yet this fact is only referenced in a footnote as if it were not an essential point of the investigation? The NIST report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the 'structural behavior of the tower' after the collapse began. Absurdly, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not explain what happened after it started, and why the collapse was total and complete. More outrageously, NIST can’t even prove convincingly why the collapse began."

    Yeah thanks for your personal translation of NIST's theories which were not based on any legitimate investigation.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    Sure I can quote NIST all day long too, "it's easy", and even add some frills to it. Besides being fraudulent and scientifically/forensically proven to be false, the NIST theories don't match reality and are an insult to intelligence, especially their WTC7 computer model cartoons.

    [video=youtube;pmdcMb5D9gM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM[/video]
     
  10. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yet there is not a single engineering institute or demolition company in the world which think fire did not cause these buildings to collapse.... yeah you guys sure are exposing the truth... 15 years and still waiting...

    You act although NIST is a single person publishing fiction... they employed hundreds of people to investigate these collapses, including many from the private sector; the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE); the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE); the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA); the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH); and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) just to name a few. There has also been countless independent studies which support a fire induced collapsed.

    But they're all wrong. Because it "looks" like a controlled demolition, and you just don't get it. Well heck. Diddums.
     
  11. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can take these groups you mention one at a time, but you comment is ill founded and incorrect.......The SEI lead investigator, Daniel A Cuoco, who recently died of an unknown listed illness at 68 only investigated surrounding buildings for structural damage......"With him as leader, the World Trade Center structural engineering disaster response team investigated demolition and temporary stabilization procedures along with the design of grillages, they analyzed the existing structures to support construction equipment, they coordinated the survey monitoring of the existing damaged structures, and they inspected approximately 400 buildings in the area surrounding the collapse site." This organization did not make claim to the validity of Building 7 or towers collapse by the Commission report.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Completely incorrect.
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roll:

    Right there psikey! Read it over and over and over. You can try and explain it away all you want, but it's in black and white. Two more levels and two more levels. ONE TO ONE.

    You screwed up and can't admit it!

    :roflol:

    The problem I have been trying to explain to you is that you can't use Newton's 3rd Law to explain why YOU think the the upper section should have stopped. That's why you're model and what you try to show with it stinks. It's terrible.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah the guy who posts false claims as part of his rabid defense of the OCT (e.g. Sibel Edmonds).

    There are several problems with your post defending NIST's fraud and questioning none of it.

    1. It doesn't change the fact that NIST never investigated the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11, which was their primary objective.
    2. It doesn't change the fact that the manner in which NIST "investigated" was fraudulent as fully detailed and is irrefutable (because it uses NIST's own documented publications and statements) in the thread I provided the link to.
    3. It doesn't change the fact that it has been scientifically/forensically proven that NIST's WTC7 collapse theory is impossible. A peer reviewed publication should be available this year.
    4. None of the above entities were commissioned by Congress to INVESTIGATE the collapse of the 3 towers other than NIST.
    5. None of the above entities had access to ALL of NIST's data which NIST refuses to publicly release even under FOIA request. So any actual investigation or peer review of NIST's published theories are impossible.
    6. None of the above entities actually scientifically/criminally/forensically investigated the destruction of the 3 towers which includes (at the very least) interviewing ALL available eyewitnesses and forensically/chemically analyzing the physical ecidence, not to mention using standard universally accepted investigation protocols (e.g. NFPA).

    Not one has actually proven any fire induced collapse theory and at least 2 that I can recall that actually studied NIST's WTC7 theory contradicted NIST's collapse initiation theory for WTC7 (ARUP and CTUH). And one independent study (Dr. Leroy Hulsey's team) proved it to be impossible. Supporting and proving are 2 entirely different things. For example, you support NIST's theory but can't prove it, in fact no one can, not even NIST.

    But you're right about a couple of things, NIST was made up of a bunch of experts it wasn't just one person. And their leadership conspired (or were ordered) to fake an investigation. And they did in fact publish works of fiction.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is your problem right here and why you fail. You can't use a generic term like LEVELS and slap a single term like FORCE to represent that level when talking about the results of two complex objects in a collision. This is what I have been trying to explain to you.

    Why?

    Because the load strength of the perimeter column assemblies is different than the load strength of the core columns, which are different than the load strength of the horizontal beams connecting the core columns, which is different then the floors between the perimeter columns and core columns.

    Case in point. If we dropped a 36 foot long column from 80th floor core area straight onto a core column that connected to it just below, the results of the collisions would be different than if we were to drop that same 80th floor area core column straight onto the 4" thick concrete floor of floor 79. The majority of the horizontal structure impacted by falling debris was the concrete floors around the core.

    Let me ask you this. What falling debris impacted the perimeter columns from straight on top of them?
     
  16. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Doesn't change the fact not a single professional engineering body or demolition company agrees with you.
     
    usda_select likes this.
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's irrelevant, companies' official positions mean nothing, they just tow the party line for the most part. Many have government contracts and the bottom line is much more important to them than any moral compass. I can just imagine Raytheon or Halliburton (as company policy) protesting the never ending war on terror. I also doubt that any of them have ever publicly stated they completely agree with all the NIST reports. In fact, as posted CTUH and ARUP both published their disagreements with the NIST WTC7 report.

    Many of these people work or worked for the US government and some of the companies that support the OCT:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    Your point still doesn't change the facts or anything I posted. But keep up the OCT/NIST groveling if it makes you feel better and be sure never to question any of it, that would be disastrous for your well being.
     
  18. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It also said:

    So if it is slowing down how can it maintain one to one destruction, and elsewhere I said the levels become more different as they were farther apart because lower levels had to support more weight. You are just ignoring what you prefer.

    psik
     
  19. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Nonsense. It's totally relevant. If, after 15 years, the most widely known, studied, and talked about terrorist attack in history does not have a single professional institution globally which thinks it was a government conspiracy, then it's pretty clear cut that it wasn't a government conspiracy.
     
    usda_select likes this.
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah great logic, it's relevant to you for sure. Appeal to authority much? Oh yeah, you bought the whole shebang (OCT) from authority and never questioned it, you even defend it daily. So what else is new? But don't worry, there's a lot more than that who agree with you and them, the entire MSM for one. You're in fine company. Sorry that still doesn't change the facts I posted, you never even addressed any of them.

    BTW, professional institutions don't think, people do. Their collective agenda is exactly what I stated ($$$$$).
     
  21. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    15 years. Still waiting.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a lie too. You're not waiting for anything.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It doesn't change the fact that you implied a one to one crushing psikey. It's there in black and white. It also doesn't change the fact that you are now distancing yourself from your claim that Newton's 3rd Law is why the collapse should have stopped in conjunction with the results of your stupid model.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What about this psikey?
     
  24. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Implications are black and white?

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inference

    You are so good at demonstrating that you are educated.

    You can accuse me of implying whatever you want. I have stated that we do not have the data on the distribution of steel therefore we do not know the distribution of strength.

    You just are not worth the time. THE END!

    psik
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    psikey, you can spin you're crap all you want. You got caught lying and trying to weasel your way out of what you said. I provided your quotes.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    As usual, the truther runs when they are shown they are wrong.

    :roflol:
     

Share This Page