15 years 911 twin towers was it a controlled demolition ???

[Bodi]

sorry boss but the buildings were built to withstand a full size jet hitting it.. the fire was oxygen starved it was not hot enough to destroy the vertical steel supports.. also the furniture in the building has to be fire retardant under building code. just the facts...by the way whats with the molten steel simmering for days after the collapse??

Fire retardent does not mean fire proof...

 

[Tigerace117]

Let's consider Josie's post, if we may, and see how rational and accurate it really is:

She says we all saw both planes crash into the Twin Towers. George Bush made essentially the same claim, and somebody had to inform him that very few people actually saw the first strike, simply because unlike the second strike, there were almost no cameras recording the strike. Nearby residents who did see it called NYPD 911 and reported it, but "we all" did not see it.

So like Dubya's statement, Josie's is not accurate.

She claims that the buildings were built to fall into themselves, certainly an original statement as far as I know. Original, but unsupported. Who said that? The architects have not, nor have the engineers. Josie said that, nobody else. What building is made to "fall into itself"? Perhaps you can elaborate Manc, as to how rational or accurate that claim is.

Then she says that radical islamists (wow, Barack would never say that :mrgreen did it and rejoiced in it. Well, all things considered, that can be claimed, but cannot be proved, neither by the government nor by Josie. The only record about rejoicing, at least in the US, shows a handful of Israelis rejoicing, as they filmed it from the NJ side of the river.

So tell me Manc, just how rational and accurate is Josie's statement?

Obviously the Jews did it. Has the ZOG sent by its agents to steal your guns yet?

:roll:

 

[ozeco41]

I question every thing that defies physics

You would never need to defy anything based on that premise.

BUT I suggest you mean "I question every thing that defies my limited understanding of physics.


And the irony in your post - when you assert "I question every thing that defies physics"...
....WHILST your sig says "I find the lack of logic in humans most disturbing..."

Presumably you must be "most disturbed"?

...by your own post?

:doh

 

[mike2810]

You would never need to defy anything based on that premise.

BUT I suggest you mean "I question every thing that defies my limited understanding of physics.


And the irony in your post - when you assert "I question every thing that defies physics"...
....WHILST your sig says "I find the lack of logic in humans most disturbing..."

Presumably you must be "most disturbed"?

...by your own post?

:doh

Well done.
:applaud:applaud:applaud

 

[Quag]

You would never need to defy anything based on that premise.

BUT I suggest you mean "I question every thing that defies my limited understanding of physics.


And the irony in your post - when you assert "I question every thing that defies physics"...
....WHILST your sig says "I find the lack of logic in humans most disturbing..."

Presumably you must be "most disturbed"?

...by your own post?

:doh

It isnt just the limited understanding of physics that is the problem it is also their (willfully) limited understanding of the events that are the problem.
For instance when they say the building collapsed at free fall within its own footprint when what actually happened is that part of the building fell for part of the collapse at near free fall and the debris covered several blocks.

 

[mike2810]

It isnt just the limited understanding of physics that is the problem it is also their (willfully) limited understanding of the events that are the problem.
For instance when they say the building collapsed at free fall within its own footprint when what actually happened is that part of the building fell for part of the collapse at near free fall and the debris covered several blocks.

but, but. that does not fit the narrative they have been told. :lamo
Never mind the facts, it is much easier to play the "what if" scenario.

 

[plutonium]

While it doesn't surprise me that this sort of silly conspiracy theory still has it's adherents, it does make me a bit worried for the future. Soem people will believe anything.

You are right I believe the scientist, university professors, physicist, firemen, structural engineers, and architects. and some people believe anything the government says I true.. pick a side... I side with the people that don't have an agenda and are educated in the field of how a building is constructed. and this is not a few engineers it is a lot of them.

 

[plutonium]

a building going down at 98% freefall speed for one reason. and molten steel burning for weeks in the rubble from office furniture and airplane fuel (kerosene) to start....

 

[Deuce]

a building going down at 98% freefall speed for one reason. and molten steel burning for weeks in the rubble from office furniture and airplane fuel (kerosene) to start....

The building did not fall at 98% freefall. Check your math. Oh wait. It wasn't your math, was it? Somebody gave you that number and you believed them, didn't you?

Molten steel is not evidence of controlled demolition. It's evidence of fire. Controlled demolition doesn't melt things.

 

[Howler63]

You are right I believe the scientist, university professors, physicist, firemen, structural engineers, and architects. and some people believe anything the government says I true.. pick a side... I side with the people that don't have an agenda and are educated in the field of how a building is constructed. and this is not a few engineers it is a lot of them.

What you believe is people on the edges of those fields who have been debunked and discredited TIME AND AGAIN. You believe speculation and suggestion over reason and fact. You believe crackpots because you WANT to believe crackpots.

Six really stupid 9/11 conspiracies debunked in about six seconds

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93

https://www.rt.com/usa/326180-blacksmith-911-jet-fuel-conspiracy/


You can believe all the crazy you want, just don't be surprised when we call you on it.

 

[plutonium]

I don't do name calling... please grow up ... if you don't see what I see in the videos. Thats your business I feel that I am very good at analyzing things. first of all you have to have an open mind..

 

[plutonium]

fire was not hot enough to melt steel..... kerosene (jet fuel) and office furniture....? give me a break..

 

[Howler63]

I don't do name calling... please grow up ... if you don't see what I see in the videos. Thats your business I feel that I am very good at analyzing things. first of all you have to have an open mind..

No one called you a name. And I've got a very open mind. I just happen to know crazy theories when I see them. And the 9/11 demolition theory is seriously crazy.

 

[plutonium]

im sorry I am not on this site all day...I still have to work a certain amount of hours.

 

[Deuce]

fire was not hot enough to melt steel..... kerosene (jet fuel) and office furniture....? give me a break..

Was that molten steel you saw or molten aluminum?

Controlled demolition doesn't melt anything.

You've ignored the freefall claim: it didn't fall at 98% free fall speed. But you claimed it did. Why? Someone told you that number, didn't they? And you took that number unquestioning, didn't you? Isn't that interesting? You're going around being smug that other people are supposedly accepting the government's word without question, but you yourself are accepting the word of some random guy on youtube without question. The towers fell slower than freefall.

Why do you suppose someone wanted to convince you it was freefall speed?

 

[mike2810]

a building going down at 98% freefall speed for one reason. and molten steel burning for weeks in the rubble from office furniture and airplane fuel (kerosene) to start....

So what in your view would cause steel to be "burning for weeks"?

Your sources for your insight are?

 

[Thoreau72]

What you believe is people on the edges of those fields who have been debunked and discredited TIME AND AGAIN. You believe speculation and suggestion over reason and fact. You believe crackpots because you WANT to believe crackpots.

Six really stupid 9/11 conspiracies debunked in about six seconds

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93

https://www.rt.com/usa/326180-blacksmith-911-jet-fuel-conspiracy/


You can believe all the crazy you want, just don't be surprised when we call you on it.

Oh boy, a Popular Mechanics fan. Some things never change. :mrgreen:

 

[Deuce]

Oh boy, a Popular Mechanics fan. Some things never change. :mrgreen:

Like believing in literal magic nukes?

 

[Howler63]

Oh boy, a Popular Mechanics fan. Some things never change. :mrgreen:

can you refute ANY of their findings? In any of the links I posted? Anything?

 

[SocialD]

Oh boy, a Popular Mechanics fan. Some things never change. :mrgreen:

This side pretty much debunks everything including debunking rebuttals to the debunking. and not just with a few sources but on many of the subtopics so many sources its overwhelming.
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

 

[zyzygy]

You are right I believe the scientist, university professors, physicist, firemen, structural engineers, and architects. and some people believe anything the government says I true.. pick a side... I side with the people that don't have an agenda and are educated in the field of how a building is constructed. and this is not a few engineers it is a lot of them.

Do you believe in the magic mini-nukes?

 

[mike2810]

Oh boy, a Popular Mechanics fan. Some things never change. :mrgreen:

True.
Somethings never change. Like your responses.

Have you figured out how to link to your sources yet?:lamo

 

[ozeco41]

fire was not hot enough to melt steel.....

Of course it wasn't. Who here is saying it was? Why? Have you rebutted the silly claim? If not why not?

Reality is that anyone making such an assertion is telling fibs based on a "straw man" premise.

The issue is usually raised by alleged "truthers". In former years by honest genuine truthers who really were seeking truth.....remember they coined the term "truther" themselves and it was originally an honourable use of the "truth" root word. Sadly corrupted by both their opponents and those contemporary trolls who pose as truthers these days.

However - the real issue is whether or not there was sufficient heat to weaken sufficient columns to contribute to the Twin Towers initiation stage of collapse. (Taking a "rain check" on WTC7 at this stage.)

There was sufficient heat - and if you are genuinely interested in learning why say so and I will explain it step by step. My usual ROEs - any more than two posts of debating trick nonsense and I simply cease the conversation. So your call.

Here are the few opening comments to see if you have any genuine interest:
(a) The Twin Towers initiation stage - deterioration of the strength of the fire and impact zone - from aircraft impact through ~1 hour of unfought fires - till it became too weak to support - was a "cascading" (sequential) failure of columns mostly - dominated by those that were - failures in axial compression overload;
(b) The only column which had to be heat affected to start that process was the FIRST one in the sequence - unless there was CD;
(c) Status of CD remains "no viable hypothesis ever presented" - so heat was the "trigger" - for the FIRST column in that cascade;
(d) Other columns may or may not have needed heat weakening depending on where each specific column fitted into the load redistribution pattern of the cascading failure.
AND
(e) "Melting" did not occur and was not needed. It is a strawman invented by truthers and sometimes given more credence that it deserves by "debunkers".

...kerosene (jet fuel) and office furniture....?

If you are seriously interested in understanding drop the nonsense - in this case a "lie by innuendo" based on a "strawman" plus a couple of lesser tricks.

....give me a break..

I have with this offer to join serious discussion. Ball in your court. Remember my "Two Posts" SOP/ROE. If you don't make a serious comment I wont waste bandwidth discusing with YOU. For the benefit of other members I may chose to parse, analyse and mince into bits any further nonsense you post.

There is your "break" - your call.

 

[Quag]

Do you believe in the magic mini-nukes?

They are not magical just radioactive, non exploding bombs that emit no radiation.
DUH!

 

[Thoreau72]

can you refute ANY of their findings? In any of the links I posted? Anything?

Yes, PM is a purveyor of government talking points, nothing more. A government lapdog, as is most of the rest of the mainstream media. They don't ask meaningful questions, they publish nonsensical stories with the attendant misinformation.