• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Science says there were no hijackers on 911

psikeyhackr said:
Sure, say someone is stupid without explaining how they are stupid.
Click to expand...
psikey,

Pin does not care about "which way the grain goes", how a force can be focused, yield strength of an object depending on where you place the stress, or other factors for determining if an object will yield/shear/break. Here is Pin's logic:

Steel is stronger than a flesh and bone bird. A bird penetrated the nose of a jet. Therefore since steel is stronger than bird and bird penetrated nose, nose/jet cannot penetrate steel perimeter facade.

He is strictly basing this logic off of the material properties. So I asked him about an ax splitting a piece of wood. Anyone knows that steel is stronger than wood right? If I use the sharpened edge of a steel ax, it splits the wood no problem. If I flip the same ax around and strike a piece of wood with the flat side, the ax will bounce off. Why? I thought we established the steel was stronger than wood? How did the wood resist?

This is why Pin's logic is terrible and why he doesn't understand what happened. You're along the same line because you try and use a paper loop and washer model to show how physics should have worked in regards to the towers. But that's another discussion.
 
Sometimes, even science is wrong. But, eh's a cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything.
 
camlok said:
Fourteen percent of a building cannot crush 86%, especially when that 86% is much much stronger. It is equally impossible for it to crush at accelerating speed.


911 - The laws of physics ARE NOT negotiable or debatable. They DO NOT take a day off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZIksq5QyI8

-------------

https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/half-in-half-out1.jpg
Click to expand...

They didnt take a day off, the problem is truthers either dont understand physics or intentionally misrepresent it
 
gamolon said:
psikey,

Pin does not care about "which way the grain goes", how a force can be focused, yield strength of an object depending on where you place the stress, or other factors for determining if an object will yield/shear/break. Here is Pin's logic:

Steel is stronger than a flesh and bone bird. A bird penetrated the nose of a jet. Therefore since steel is stronger than bird and bird penetrated nose, nose/jet cannot penetrate steel perimeter facade.

He is strictly basing this logic off of the material properties. So I asked him about an ax splitting a piece of wood. Anyone knows that steel is stronger than wood right? If I use the sharpened edge of a steel ax, it splits the wood no problem. If I flip the same ax around and strike a piece of wood with the flat side, the ax will bounce off. Why? I thought we established the steel was stronger than wood? How did the wood resist?

This is why Pin's logic is terrible and why he doesn't understand what happened. You're along the same line because you try and use a paper loop and washer model to show how physics should have worked in regards to the towers. But that's another discussion.
Click to expand...


Hilarious!!! He doesn't even understand what I wrote!!

what a joke he makes of himself!!
 
Pin dÁr said:
Hilarious!!! He doesn't even understand what I wrote!!

what a joke he makes of himself!!
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to post some evidence
 
There are so many firefighters, first responders describing explosions.

Richard Banaciski, 9110253
South Tower:
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going
all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...Not thinking that this building is coming
down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff was going to come down. [pp.
3-4]
***
Brian Becker, 9110019
South Tower [As experienced from inside NT.)
I’d say we were in the 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor, or something like that, and a few of the guys were
lying wiped out on the floor, you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the
hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the--it felt like
there was an explosion above us... [p. 12]
...
[Again on the subject of the collapse of S T as experienced in NT]
Q. What did you hear when the building starting collapsing the second time? Did you feel -- just
started coming down? You didn't hear anything, feel anything?
A. We felt -- our whole building that we were in, when World Trade Center 2 collapsed, that was
the first one to collapse. We were in World Trade Center 1. It was a tremendous explosion and
tremendous shaking of our building. [p. 20]
Click to expand...
 
camlok said:
There are so many firefighters, first responders describing explosions.
Click to expand...

Explosions in large fires are not uncommon and do not mean bombs.
Why do you keep lying and pretending an explosion means a bomb?
 
camlok said:
There are so many firefighters, first responders describing explosions.
Click to expand...

To those defending the official story, that didn't happen.
 
Thoreau72 said:
To those defending the official story, that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Another lie. No one denies explosions HD, but explosions do not mean bombs.
I know this is hard for you to grasp because it goes against your preconceived notions but reality doesn't care about your ideology.
 
Thoreau72 said:
To those defending the official story, that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Good grief.
Of course the firefighters made the statements. Explosions did occur.
Common sense and investigation practices calls for statements to be backed up with other evidence.

Explosions can sometimes occur during a fire that have nothing to do with bombs/explosives.

Those defending the CD story can't agree on what caused the "explosions" that some firefighters heard.
Were all explosions that were heard in the WTC 1,2,7 from bombs? If not, how did the firefighters distinguish between bombs and natural occurring sounds?

So where is the one concise CD story?
Is it your mix of many stories that explains what is heard? You know your in disagreement then with the AE911T organization.:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
Good grief.
Of course the firefighters made the statements. Explosions did occur.
Common sense and investigation practices calls for statements to be backed up with other evidence.

Explosions can sometimes occur during a fire that have nothing to do with bombs/explosives.

Those defending the CD story can't agree on what caused the "explosions" that some firefighters heard.
Were all explosions that were heard in the WTC 1,2,7 from bombs? If not, how did the firefighters distinguish between bombs and natural occurring sounds?

So where is the one concise CD story?
Is it your mix of many stories that explains what is heard? You know your in disagreement then with the AE911T organization.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Just a typical truther lie. Truthers are about the most dishonest people you will ever meet.
 
Thoreau72 said:
To those defending the official story, that didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Your continuous lies are getting tiresome.

"Those defending the official story", or "we" (to clarify for Pin), acknowledge explosions. We're smart enough to know that explosions do not mean explosives.
 
camlok said:
It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

Pictures of the vaporized steel

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

The only fuel that the hijackers are said to have brought to the WTC, according to the official government story, is jet fuel. Add office furnishings and you have fuels that can reach a maximum of about 1,800F. Steel melts at about 2,800F. Molybdenum melts at about 4,700F. Vaporized steel needs higher temperatures.


Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC
Point TT-6: Buildings

Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911
Click to expand...

There's a documentary regarding the construction of the WTC that answers why the perfect storm collapse of the two buildings occurred. Have you viewed it? I think this concept that the event isn't what we all know it to be very sad for humanity. Not unlike those who claim there was no holocaust. Do people who spout these kinds of therories understand the impact they have on the survivors and the grieving? People should stop and think about the impact of their words.
 
mike2810 said:
Good grief.
Of course the firefighters made the statements. Explosions did occur.
Common sense and investigation practices calls for statements to be backed up with other evidence.

Explosions can sometimes occur during a fire that have nothing to do with bombs/explosives.

Those defending the CD story can't agree on what caused the "explosions" that some firefighters heard.
Were all explosions that were heard in the WTC 1,2,7 from bombs? If not, how did the firefighters distinguish between bombs and natural occurring sounds?

So where is the one concise CD story?
Is it your mix of many stories that explains what is heard? You know your in disagreement then with the AE911T organization.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Is it bait & switch?

You acknowledge there were explosions in one breath, and rationalize them away by imagining any other significance for them besides nefarious purposes, as though there are no bad guys in government.

Stay with the official story Mike, you'll be much happier.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Is it bait & switch?

You acknowledge there were explosions in one breath, and rationalize them away by imagining any other significance for them besides nefarious purposes, as though there are no bad guys in government.

Stay with the official story Mike, you'll be much happier.
Click to expand...

Back at you T.
bait and switch. Have you provided any evidence that held up that it was your mini neutron bombs or even conventional explosives?

I never called my fellow firefighters the bad guys. It is you who cannot accept the fact that statements need to be backed up with other evidence.

You realize how telling your post response is when you failed to answer the question of how the firefighters could tell just from the sound it was a bomb.

Unlike your closed mind. I have stated show me the CD explanation with the evidence. You dance away from it. Common sense tells anyone it was not what you believe.

and for the last time. One can accept a fire induced collapse WITHOUT accepting 100% of the official report.

Stay with your c4-nanothermite, mini neutron bomb explanation if that makes you happy.

According to you then, all explosions come from explosives/bombs. Guess one should teste for "explosives" when one hears an explosion during a blow up of a forest fire that is in the middle of a wilderness.

Sorry but your investigation logic is flawed.
 
Thoreau72 said:
To those defending the official story, that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

if you look closely at the posting of the people defending the official story, you will see mostly, circular reasoning,
and confirmation bias. Sometimes the circular reasoning is difficult to spot, but it is nearly always there.
They start , maybe unconsciously, from the angle of the offical story, and then they find 'arguments' that fit their fairy tale.
Edward de Bono ( An expert in thinking) calls this the 'intelligence trap'. the 'arguments' of the beiievers in the official fairy tale, use this numerous times.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
Back at you T.
bait and switch. Have you provided any evidence that held up that it was your mini neutron bombs or even conventional explosives?

I never called my fellow firefighters the bad guys. It is you who cannot accept the fact that statements need to be backed up with other evidence.

You realize how telling your post response is when you failed to answer the question of how the firefighters could tell just from the sound it was a bomb.

Unlike your closed mind. I have stated show me the CD explanation with the evidence. You dance away from it. Common sense tells anyone it was not what you believe.

and for the last time. One can accept a fire induced collapse WITHOUT accepting 100% of the official report.

Stay with your c4-nanothermite, mini neutron bomb explanation if that makes you happy.

According to you then, all explosions come from explosives/bombs. Guess one should teste for "explosives" when one hears an explosion during a blow up of a forest fire that is in the middle of a wilderness.

Sorry but your investigation logic is flawed.
Click to expand...

Preponderance of the evidence Mike. The place is blown to smithereens, with large pieces hundreds of feet laterally, impaled. For you that means nothing. Firemen reporting flowing iron and explosions. For you that means nothing. Molten iron for 3 months, and you want to blame it on blown up transformers.

Terrific analysis Mike, terrific analysis. :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Preponderance of the evidence Mike. The place is blown to smithereens, with large pieces hundreds of feet laterally, impaled. For you that means nothing. Firemen reporting flowing iron and explosions. For you that means nothing. Molten iron for 3 months, and you want to blame it on blown up transformers.

Terrific analysis Mike, terrific analysis. :lol:
Click to expand...

" The place is blown to smithereens", assumption on your part.

funny how the CD supporters can't agree. There is a reason for that.

and you still won't address the questions asked of you.

Then explain why there is not a one concise explanation of CD of WTC1,2,7?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Preponderance of the evidence Mike. The place is blown to smithereens, with large pieces hundreds of feet laterally, impaled. For you that means nothing. Firemen reporting flowing iron and explosions. For you that means nothing. Molten iron for 3 months, and you want to blame it on blown up transformers.

Terrific analysis Mike, terrific analysis. :lol:
Click to expand...

Preponderance of evidence says 4 planes were hijacked and crashed on 9112.
Yoru fantasy has 0 evidence behind it.
Guess which one is the truth
 
mike2810 said:
" The place is blown to smithereens", assumption on your part.

funny how the CD supporters can't agree. There is a reason for that.

and you still won't address the questions asked of you.

Then explain why there is not a one concise explanation of CD of WTC1,2,7?
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen all of Sonnenfeld's photos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom