Motlen metal pouring from the sides of the towers 7 minutes to collapse

Discussion in '9/11' started by MkStevenson, Jul 15, 2014.

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. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    among the bits that truly are hard evidence,
    the absence of flight recorders or for that matter
    even pieces of flight recorders from "FLT11" & "FLT175"
    the fact that the PRESIDENT was allowed to stay in a
    publicly known location after the second hit to the WTC
    and it was known AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK.
    the much more than problematic nature of having
    the top 15% of a skyscraper "collapse" down onto the
    remaining 85% and destroy the whole building right down
    to ground level. and you are quick to call this "incredulity"
    but lets get real here, how is it that this phenomenon can
    be explained except to include an additional source of energy?
    There are all sorts of anomalies in the events of 9/11/2001
    and people simply want to believe the official story because
    it doesn't rock the boat with regards to the political status quo.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You've been shown the physics and the math as to how the collapse happened.

    Do you have any evidence to refute it?
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am truly shocked that the AMERICAN public
    is so seriously buying this crap! Somebody writes
    up a page of impressive looking numbers and everybody
    bows down to the lords of high science, however its a FRAUD.
    the concept that the tower(s) & 7 just happened to "collapse"
    as they did in response to the factors that were present that
    day, is a huge stretch!

    I guess I have to chalk it up to ... some people
    are color-blind, some people are tone-deaf,
    & some people do not see physical events the same
    way as others. I am NOT the only person in the known
    universe that sees what I see, and the physical science
    that backs the concept that the least probable outcome
    of the top 15% of a skyscraper "collapsing" causing the
    total destruction of 110 stories of building has sound basis
    in not only the physics of it but in the probabilities.

    Have you ever played pachinko? there is a specific
    probability of the balls landing in specific slots, however
    the balls theoretically can land in any slot. What we
    have in the form of the really giant Pachinko machine
    is the stuff above the 93rd floor of the north tower, and
    it falling could impact the lower floors in any number of
    different ways, however, the ways that it had to have
    happened for the observed result to have happened,
    is for the material from above to make precision hits
    so as to break the structure below and keep going without
    deflecting a significant portion of the material out and over
    the side so as to be lost to the mass required to keep the
    action going.
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Prove it.
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you actually read #128 in this discussion?
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes.

    Prove your claim. Show your work.
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You obviously do not get the logical argument here.
    I can not help you in this matter ...... sorry about that.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Based on what?

    Correct. You are part of the "less than 1% of the engineering community group". Impressive numbers.

    :roll:

    And you STILL have not provided anything to refute the physical science that backs these findings other than your probability garbage.

    :roflol::roflol::roflol:

    This has to be the most ridiculous explanation used to compare the destruction of the towers that I have ever heard!

    Just... wow...
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's right up there with the 'clunkety-clunk' lady
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I just have to entertain this.

    1. What if a dropped 50 balls at the same time. What are the odds that one will fall into the far right space?
    2. What are the odds that one of the 50 balls will fall outside the Pachinko machine? Why is that not possible?
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I suspected.

    This forum requires that you back up your claims ... when will you start doing that?
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My arguments have been backed up by logic & reason.
    You seem to have this fixation upon mass quantities of numbers
    to justify any position.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In other words, your unfounded logic and reason. You have yet to back anything up other than a statement of incredulity.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are things that people simply KNOW
    that is you would not jump out of an airplane
    without a parachute ..... you don't have to try
    it to know that is a bad idea. There are things
    that are obvious and therefore are simply logical.
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evidently not.
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would prefer hard facts, evidence and science to faulty logic and incredulous reason.
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you design and build a structure using pure logic and probability? Exactly. Trying to reconstruct the destruction of a building is the same way. You need calculations and numbers.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For centuries, people build bridges over rivers ( etc.... )
    the built shelter, lots of things got done without the
    advanced "science" that is so much worshiped today.

    What ever happened to common sense?
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Build an expansion bridge or a skyscraper using common sense. For that matter, design and construct a two story house using no science, only your 'common sense'.

    Don't make me laugh.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Curious: in your opinion, were the great pyramids designed and constructed using math and physics or 'common sense'?
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :eyepopping:

    Advanced science replaced your "common sense" because using "advanced science" improved upon your "common sense" created items.

    Honestly GenericBob, some of the things you post are quite ridiculous.

    How was this "common sense" developed in order to construct viable shelters and bridges. You think that "Norm the Nomad" woke up one morning and had the perfect plan to create a rope bridge without and prior knowledge of ANYTHING to base it on? Trial and error perhaps? Your not just born with volumes of "common sense" filed away in your brain.

    - - - Updated - - -

    :clapping:
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really these people didn't even have slide rules, also, the
    ancient Egyptian builders did not calculate the strength of
    materials, stone was stone and you make great heaps of
    it to build whatever it is you are tying to build, the engineering
    came in with the effort to move the great stones that made up
    the Pyramids. however, your argument centers around a certain
    order to things that was brought about by engineering but on the
    other hand you dismiss the order that was present in the "collapse"
    events of the Towers & 7, the very fact of destruction that was as
    complete as it was, should set off alarms big time, and the only
    reason why it isn't is the psychological warfare that has been going on.
     
  22. Don Townsend

    Don Townsend New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
    Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
    David Ray Griffin


    Jones, Steven E., 2006. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In Griffin and Scott, eds., 2006.

    Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm).

    Hoffman, Jim, 2003. “The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,” Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html).

    _____, 2004. “Your Eyes Don’t Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html).

    _____, 2005. “Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century,” 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

    Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11thAttack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software.

    Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html).
    King, Jeff, 2003. “The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show,” Indymedia Webcast News, November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7342&group=webcast).
    Lavello, Randy, n.d. “Bombs in the Building,” Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html).

    Meyer, Peter, n.d. “Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?”, Section 3 of “The World Trade Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism,” Serendipity (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html).
    _____, 2005b. “WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High,” Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm).
    Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).
    Glanz, James. 2001. “Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated,” New York Times, November 29.
    Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. “Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC,’” American Free Press, October 22 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/ Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html).

    Baker, Jeremy, n.d. “PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7,” Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).
     

Share This Page