Discussion in '9/11' started by n0spam, Jun 6, 2014.
I fixed your post.
No, you're being a jerk, Bob.
Show me your 'science'. Your opinion is immaterial.
The above won't be re-posted for other posts of yours with similar characteristics, they will simply be ignored.
The science is that modern high rise structures do not collapse at free fall speeds from fire. That was demonstrated again on New Years Day in Dubai.
The science is that the damage observed at WTC could not possibly have been caused by office fires as the government says it was. Pure nonsense.
Nor did the WTC's. So what's your point? Or are you trying to tell me that WTC's 1,2 & 7 fell at free-fall when we KNOW this is a lie?
Why can't you demonstrate this then? Simply because you can't and I know it, and you know I know it. Go back to your nukes and the no-planers.
More low hanging fruit.
Those 3 buildings collapsed at NEARLY free fall rates.
Feel better now?
The measured rate of destruction for the twin towers is approximately 2/3 free fall acceleration. For WTC7, it's indistinguishable from free fall for the first 100 ft. (8 stories) from when the roof line began its descent. Even NIST agrees with that. They had no choice, they were confronted with that glaring omission before publication and included it in their final report on WTC7 with no explanation as to how that was possible for a natural fire induced collapse. During the alleged collapses, there were no discernible jolts (something one would expect when any building structure is collapsing on itself) for any of the 3 towers and no noticeable significant slow down or hesitation in acceleration. There have been more than 40 high rise fires before and after 9/11, many much more intense and some fully or nearly fully involved but not one has ever globally collapsed. Only one high rise (the Windsor Tower in Madrid) partially collapsed but the majority of the building remained standing. In 1999, the Usce Tower in Serbia was hit by multiple missiles on two separate occasions, was severely damaged, caught fire but never collapsed. It was reconstructed and is in use today as an office building.
When 1 and 2 collapsed, where did the energy go? ... do you know anything about foundations Bob? ...
From what is plain to see in the videos, both towers were blown to pieces, top down, beginning with the huge explosions that ripped the smaller top portion from the lower portion, they did not "collapse". But even if you actually believe these were natural collapses, what does where the energy went have to do with the manner in which the twins "collapsed"? Or the fact that no other high rise has ever collapsed in such a manner from fire, planes or both or even significantly collapsed at all?
Nope, I'm not an architect or an engineer. Do you? So what does that have to do with the manner in which the twins or WTC7 "collapsed"? I do know that to plan a successful CD, the foundation has to be blown properly and there is evidence that was what happened to all 3 towers.
so you have evidence that the foundations of 1, 2 and 7 were blown out by explosives ... please provide ...
No I don't own any evidence of anything. The evidence is in the testimonies of eyewitnesses who were there and in some photos I've seen. It's fully consistent with the rest of the evidence, the manner in which the towers were destroyed, the many eyewitness statements of explosions and molten metal, the science, the logic, etc., the list is long. I wasn't there, the evidence though, overwhelmingly contradicts the OCT.
so you have no evidence that the foundations were blown out in a controlled demo ... not that I thought you did ... the question I posed concerned the foundations of the WTC complex and specifically how the buildings surrounding 1 and 2 could have been compromised by those collapses ... that is a better question for NIST than any you have proposed ...
Show me the pictures of the blown out foundations you have seen ...
I already went over that. Don't worry though, the only evidence that counts for you is what the US government wants you to buy.
Then send them an email. I haven't asked or proposed to ask NIST anything. I can just imagine the kind of answer(s) I would get (if any). It's irrelevant to the manner in which the towers were destroyed though.
There are several eyewitness claims of explosions coming from lower sections of at least one of the towers and WTC7. The lobbies of the North Tower and WTC7 were rocked by explosions according to eyewitness claims and photos. The photos of the foundations following 9/11 were posted by a poster in this forum who goes by the id Kokomojo, I don't have the links.
I thought we weren't doing insults anymore? ... I don't buy what I can't afford ... intelligent reasoning and hard evidence (which you do not have) forms my conclusions ... none of your CD comparison videos are worth (*)(*)(*)(*) if you tried to watch them without your confirmation bias controlling your objectivity ...
I don't need to send them an email ... as an engineer specializing in high rise foundations, I just thought they were lacking in that aspect ... and it is totally relevant as intelligent reasoning can easily tell you that controlled demolitions were impossible considering all the circumstantial evidence ...
I have already discussed what the untrained ear can describe as explosions ... there were no CD explosive going off at the time of any of the collapses ... and Kokomojojo is a misleading crackpot who dodges technical questions ...
If the facts are insulting to you then I'm sorry but they are still the facts. You bought the OCT, didn't you? At least that's what all your posts imply.
Propaganda is free of charge.
I understand that that's what you believe they peddled. Like I said, you bought it.
1. I don't own any of these videos so they're not mine.
2. You're right I'm biased in favor of what is so incredibly obvious to me and many whom I find credible. You're not one of them.
Sure, just take their word for it, that's what you've been doing, no need to ask any questions. I understand completely.
Your reasoning or lack thereof.
You are free to discuss anything you want, it's irrelevant, you weren't there. Eyewitnesses describe explosions they heard, saw, felt and were injured by them. It's not all about the ear.
Your claim is irrelevant, you weren't there. And even if you were, you don't speak for all the eyewitnesses who claim otherwise. I'll take the word of eyewitnesses over that of an anonymous poster armed with an opinion and a keyboard. And even without any eyewitnesses, it's still so obvious from the videos.
Whether that's true or not, I don't believe the foundation photos he posted have anything to do with him personally so that's irrelevant too. Besides the photos are far from the only evidence, the corroborating evidence is overwhelming even without the foundation photos. I assume he's a "crackpot" because he hasn't bought the OCT?
beyond all the fluff ... you claimed evidence of foundations being blown out yet do not understand the physics of the collapses and refer to other posters and their "evidence" ... you obviosly bought into Koko's BS but can't cite it? ... far from being an engineer of any sort, you're obviously not a lawyer either ... you present nothing but conjecture and bias based on influences from dubious sources ...
I know you think my W&B thread is irrelevant but it is the linchpin unless you don't believe in free thought ...
you love witnesses but discount any that don't conform to your bias ...
No posters own any evidence, the evidence exists on its own and it is overwhelming. Your claim that I don't "understand the physics of the collapses" is just hot air. None of these buildings "collapsed" naturally, they were destroyed. If anything, no one has ever proven, via physics or any science, either experimentally, via computer simulation or any real world event, that one single tower can collapse in that manner naturally from any cause. Can you?
I didn't "buy" anything, he merely posted photos and that's all I referred to. You don't like the messenger and want to attack/discredit him for posting 9/11 photos? Who cares, this isn't about Kokomojo, it's about 9/11.
This isn't about me despite you desperately wanting to make it about me, it's strictly about 9/11, the facts are obvious. If one wants to talk about dubious sources, the US government is the epitome of a dubious source. And you're right, I'm not a lawyer nor would I ever want to be one. The vast majority of these are dishonest profiteers, some of them become judges and politicians. Need I say more? I've beaten lawyers at their own game, more than once.
Not interested, it has zero to do with 9/11, it's just your personal pet project.
This is clearly a lie. I have never discounted any eyewitnesses. This is what YOU do. As an example, there are well over 100 eyewitness accounts of hearing, seeing, feeling and/or being injured by explosions but you dismiss ALL of them as having an "untrained ear". But like I said, I don't care about you and your rabid defense of government criminals, you are irrelevant. ALL eyewitness accounts are important, not just the selected ones that lend support to the OCT.
Intelligent reasoning and hard evidence inform your decisions? Considering the preponderance of the evidence in this case, it appears that delusional thinking informs your decisions.
How can it be that the only case EVER of modern steel highrises 'collapsing' all happened on the same day in the same place?
How can it be that rookie pilots with no experience in high performance transport aircraft were able to fly such an airplane well outside its performance limitations?
Only delusional thinking can have a person believe these things, NOT science or informed thinking.
you have no evidence that the towers were destroyed ... None at all ... just witness statements ... get off your lazy ass and show some forensic evidence ... and don't give me your sorry excuse that you don't have to because others have ... that's weak ...
Lets get back to the Pentagon ... what hit it? ... and don't discount the witnesses ... I think seeing an aircraft is much easier than hearing explosions and being sure about the source ...
Your bias puts you into a fantasy world where you ignore logic ...
airliners landing at Dover and disappearing passengers and controlled demo of buildings makes absolutely no sense ... our government is not competent enough to pull off something of the magnitude you think happened ...
any chance you want to discuss Sandy Hook? ...
I already told you I don't own any evidence. That the towers were destroyed is not even questionable, no one needs any eyewitness statements to know that. But it seems now you're being the hypocrite because the above statement is a dismissal of eyewitness statements. Thanks for agreeing that it's really you who selects which statements you like and which you dismiss.
I don't have any forensic evidence, are you for real? Get off YOUR lazy ass and prove a high rise, any high rise, can be globally destroyed in seconds by fire, planes or both. Show an example before or after 9/11. An experiment, a legitimate computer simulation, anything. Nothing is real unless it can be proven via experiment, otherwise it's just theory.
It's not an excuse, it's reality. Do you have all the thousands of classified documents that haven't been publicly released? Why not? Others have them lol.
No it's idiotic of you.
How in **** should I know? If I knew that I would be ecstatic.
I haven't discounted any eyewitnesses, I already went over that with you.
If you say so.
Such silly drivel. This is NOT about me, it's about 9/11, stick to the topic if you can, I'm not 9/11.
I don't know what really happened, no one does except those who were involved. What happened makes sense if it's what happened. Truth is absolute, it never changes, lies change all the time.
The US government has pulled off many things neither you or I are aware of. And other things of greater magnitude (e.g. Hiroshima & Nagasaki). Don't be silly. I don't know who pulled off what, that's what many of us want to know. I do know the US government covered up 9/11, there's not one iota of doubt about that.
What for? This section of the forum is about 9/11, not Sandy Hook. Already bored with defending the US government daily about 9/11?
sure thing guys ... airliners have crashed into high rise buildings many times in a concentrated urban area with the same cheap ass construction (pin, pan and pour) so I should be able to provide examples of this ... "it's never happened before" is a sorry explanation ... let's just gloss over all the facts like how the 1 and 2 collapses started at the points of impact and any explosives would have been either rendered useless or initiated at impact ...
but yeah, I'm just buying the gubmint line ... keep telling us how the collapses were only due to fire when that is intellectual dishonesty ...
you're not the first troofers I have dealt with over the years ... Jesus Christ, I used to have to pick apart the pablum of Loose Change and Find the 757 ... bring something new to the table FFS ...
there is a reason that you trooofers can't get a new investigation ... it's because you cannot look at the big picture and realize what you are proposing is impossible ...
none of you are willing to debate how extensive this conspiracy would have to be for your cockamamie ideas to have any relevance ...
it must be a hobby for many of you ...
And is the above one of YOUR hobbies? Where are your posts that question the OCT? Anything significant?
(no response required, the questions are rhetorical, I don't personally care, just pointing out the disingenuity by asking)
i have already stated my questions regarding NIST ... your constant use of the term OCT notwithstanding, I'm still waiting for actual evidence regarding the events of the day ... something that has never happened before is not evidence ... please show me one piece of hard evidence ...
You cannot show the colors of the rainbow to a blind man.
Separate names with a comma.