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. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's been so long, and I'm going only from memory. I thought at least the North Tower was shown to have precisely placed explosives inside to rip open exoskeleton SO THAT it would appear a certain way, that a Boeing had struck it. Not sure of the south tower.

    IMO what struck the North Tower was, as numerous observers told NYPD calling it in that day, struck by a smaller jet, not a Boeing.

    The South Tower was struck by a modified 767, both were drone aircraft, no humans aboard.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's about it. just interesting, not a realistic model for many reasons. For me the idea of a mostly aluminum plane penetrating the tower and causing such severe damage makes little common sense. And of course, being the initiating cause (aided by jet fuel fire) of the global collapse of the tower into its own massive structure at near free fall unimpeded makes zero sense.

    That said I am not saying a plane didn't crash into the tower because it was recorded so it's difficult if not impossible to deny. I am saying that there is far, far more to it than just a plane crashing into the tower. The precision alone makes no sense and when combined with the idea that untrained amateurs allegedly made that happen, that's well into fairy tale land.
     
    Eleuthera and Scott like this.
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Planes hit both towers, and both were drones. Neither AA11 nor UA175 struck the towers.

    Jetfuel and office furnishings did not cause the towers or WTC7 to collapse. Preplanted explosives including nuclear devices caused the collapse and destruction.
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well, at least you’re on topic … Thoughtless WTC Conclusions
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thoughts you can't handle Shine. Too much truth and common sense for you.
     
  6. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    then by all means, please elaborate on your conclusions…
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already have silly man, and we both know it. 911 was an inside job, planned and executed by Israelis working inside the Pentagon.
     
  8. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    is this the part where you claim all your evidence has been erased from the internet? … you have been playing that card for years now E …

    man up and post your evidence of drones and nukes and don’t even try to post the pics of burnt cars on the bridge because I have blown that out of the water many, many times.
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of which has ever been proven or supported by evidence

    Least of all from you
     
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We are still stuck with:

    2001: The Specious Odyssey

    It is pretty much universally accepted that each tower had about 100,000 tons of steel. What is not mentioned much, but can be checked, is that they extended 70 feet below ground with 6 basement levels. So there were actually 116 levels 1430 feet tall.

    Can anyone believe that level 5 above ground contained the same amount of steel as level 105? How have engineering schools in the nation that put men on the Moon gone for Two Decades without discussing the distribution of steel down the entire structure including the basements?

    The 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. I have had people call me a liar. They have told me that I am too lazy and stupid to find it. One clown told me he found it but wasn't going to provide information about it.

    So far no one has provided a quote and specified a book and page number. I have been telling people about this since 2008. No one has said anything about the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower either. That seems an even more obvious thing to talk about.

    The US should be a laughing stock among all of the high school physics students around the world, or the human race is more psychologically bizarre than I can imagine.

    Way too many people think what authority tells them to think. Maybe it is believe rather than think since not much thinking is involved.
    Admittedly this Truth is awfully strange.
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not talking about the moon Scott and yes I have thoroughly reviewed the original drawings of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Have you?

    I don’t need your clinical psychologist to tell me how to think …
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2023
  12. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    2022: A Space Odyssey

    21 years and 15 days after 9/11 scientists at NASA crashed a space probe into an asteroid. No assistance from Bruce Willis was required. This was what is called an inelastic collision. The purpose of this rather expensive experiment was to test the effectiveness of altering the momentum vector of an asteroid in preparation for ever having to deflect one to prevent a possible collision of a dangerous asteroid with the Earth. It took a couple of weeks to evaluate the result but it was more successful than expected.

    But this controlled collision was astronautically engineered to occur Six Million Miles from Earth. This space probe had to be launched months in advance to be in the vicinity where the asteroid was predicted to be when the impact vehicle and it's observation vehicle got there.

    I don't doubt that someone could come up with a mathematical calculation of how much more difficult this must have been than hitting a skyscraper with an airliner. Since the round trip radio signal was a little more than a minute at 6 million miles the final control had to be completely computerized.

    So scientists and engineers at NASA could perform a controlled inelastic collision 6,000,000 miles away but they cannot analyze an unexpected one that occurred 1,000 miles from Cape Canaveral in Two Decades.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The video evidence shows 2 large planes struck each of the towers. There are reports of eyewitnesses claiming to have seen types of planes that conflict with the official report(s). But then again, almost everything conflicts with the official reports, especially the vast majority of the science, not to mention common sense. What we don't have is any forensic analysis that conclusively identifies any of the 4 planes as the ones claimed by the official reports. That's just one huge red flag of course, along with hundreds of other red flags. The burden of proof always rests with the claimant and the claimant (in this case the US government) has failed to prove much of their claims and has done everything it can do to avoid proving their claims.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I learned years ago that you cannot explain a rainbow to a blind man. He will never be able to see it.

    You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think, especially when he is in denial.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, video evidence that was available on the internet in the early days showed that the craft that struck the North Tower was not a large airplane such as an airliner, but a smaller craft like a commuter plane, and that tended to corroborate the description called in to NYPD by a handful of people, before the South Tower was even struck. That video was found on Rob Balsamo's website Pilots For 911 Truth, and was from a nearby parking lot wide angle lens camera fixed to the ground. In the background the face of the North Tower was clearly shown. Wide angle lens. RIP Rob Balsamo, he provided a great service regarding the aviation perspective of the events of the day with many airline pilots pointing out the failures of the official narrative. What is showed was only 2 or 3 seconds long, but it did not appear to be a Boeing and it was not maneuvering but straight and level. Yes, it was no longer available after some period of time, but I did watch it numerous times.

    You are correct--there are no facts that support the official narratives regarding all 4 aircraft. Indeed, all the known facts contradict the official narratives regarding the aviation events of the day.
     
  16. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Does it matter if no impacting object could possibly destroy the building like that? Suppose you had a perfect simulation of the North Tower. Raise the top 20 stories 64 feet and drop them onto the bottom 90 stories. What will happen? What must be known to design the simulation?

    It would take 2 seconds for the falling 20 stories to impact at 43.6364 miles per hour. If 30 or more stories of the 90 remained standing no matter how the top was dropped then was the plane anything but window dressing to fool the masses?
     
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    word salad and not even clever.
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. I haven't. Tell us what you saw in the drawings that convinces you that the official story is true.

    You don't seem to think objectively. You seem to have a foregone conclusion which makes you ignore clear evidence.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  19. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Really? What was the total length of horizontal beams in the core at each level and did the thickness of the beams vary down the structure?

    Lon Waters PhD said that he could not find data on those beams.
     
  20. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    before I explain weight distribution physics to you , I would like to know your credentials… amateur or professional?
     
  21. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ROFLMAO
    Anybody can CLAIM any credentials on the internet. I went to college for Electrical Engineering not structural engineering. My pledge father was a super-senior architect since architecture took 5 years. You can believe or disbelieve that since it doesn't matter anyway.

    Weight distribution physics! LOL
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  22. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol at weight distribution physics? Isn’t t that what you have been arguing? yet another troofer clown show …
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2023
  24. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You can Google it. It is about weights on planks with fulcrum and distributed on various planes. I don't see anywhere that it is about vertical structures where the lower portion must be strong enough to support the upper portions for hundreds of meters. I have simply been pointing out that the NIST and structural engineering schools have been saying nothing about this for Two Decades but we are supposed to believe that the top 13% of the North Tower could fall straight down and destroy 85%.

    Please proceed to demonstrate your brilliance.
     
  25. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    do you even know what a fulcrum is? If so, please explain what it has to do with anything regarding the collapses.
     

Share This Page