9-11….. Startling New Evidence of a Conspiracy

[rightwinger]

What makes you believe a beam must melt before it reaches the point of failure?

There have been many skyscraper fires and none collapsed except for the WTC.

Secondly, if you really think a fire on a few floors of a huge building like the WTC could result in their pancaking into their footprint in less than two hours, you are f-ing nuts. Maybe if they burned for a few days or weeks...maybe.

Remember Payne Stewart?...when air traffic control got no response from his plane, within minutes the Air Force had an F-16 making a visual. The Air Force does intercepts all the time...well except for 9/11, the Air Force did exactly NOTHING.

Our big huge absurdly expensive military...did nothing on the day we were attacked...and yet statists like you want more government. Have you gone mad?

Show a fire the equivalent of WTC with a huge hole knocked in the building and an accelerant like jet fuel

Why ask such a dumb question?

Can I do it too? Show me another fire equivalent to the WTC, where the building pancaked into it's footprint within 100 minutes.

You of all people, a radical leftist who HATES W with a unequaled passion...believes W's 9/11 story. You are truly a statist through and through.

I love you man and so does Jesus...but let's hope the ignorant do not inherit the earth.

Odd how you obsess over a building pan caking as it collapses

Why would it fall like a tree?

This tower?

 

[GLASNOST]

Why would it fall like a tree?

Why would it fall like a tree, or how could it fall like a tree? A building is make up of a skeletal frame and the rest is window dressing. How many skeletal "corners" does a build have? Four? Four with cross structures? If you apply a force to the skeletal structure of a chair or table (I am speaking about its legs, of course) breaking it ..... on how many legs will it remain standing before it "falls"? Will it fall "over" or will it fall "straight down"? That would depend upon how much (and at what side) the damage is. Yes? And then why is it that pyrotechnic demolishing of buildings require explosive charges placed all round the building and set off at the same moment .... in order for the building to fall "straight down"? Is it because they don't want it to "fall over" like a tree?

 

[rightwinger]

Why would it fall like a tree?

Why would it fall like a tree, or how could it fall like a tree? A building is make up of a skeletal frame and the rest is window dressing. How many skeletal "corners" does a build have? Four? Four with cross structures? If you apply a force to the skeletal structure of a chair or table (I am speaking about its legs, of course) breaking it ..... on how many legs will it remain standing before it "falls"? Will it fall "over" or will it fall "straight down"? That would depend upon how much (and at what side) the damage is. Yes? And then why is it that pyrotechnic demolishing of buildings require explosive charges placed all round the building and set off at the same moment .... in order for the building to fall "straight down"? Is it because they don't want it to "fall over" like a tree?

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records
That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is an amazing, and eye opening film that may well change everything that you thought you knew or that you believed about what happened on 9.11.01.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/
That’s it folks! Have at it .Don’t troll me bro. I’m just the messenger!

I appreciate that you had the integrity to post a source - Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage - that totally debunks your Europhysics News article which promotes the same, old, 9/11 CT replete with the same old, thoroughly discredited CTBS the "Truthers" have been spewing for over a decade. I found that article far more compelling.
To wit:

1) There is nothing "Startling" or "New" as your thread title claims, unless you first heard about the 9/11/2001 attack yesterday.

2) Europhysics News is not connected to the peer-reviewed Europhysics Journal (which is an actual scientific journal) but rather just a magazine that did not conclude anything but rather published the "work" of established (and discredited) "Truthers." The mysterious reclassification of an online news rag to credible scientific journal is typical of how some must play fast and loose with the truth in a lame attempt to fool the next generation of gullible foil-hatters.

3) Europhysics News did include a disclaimer in which they admitted to be publishing the authors' unscientific "speculation" and added that "the content of the article is the responsibility of the authors." Oh. In other words, they were simply spurring Internet traffic to their site.

4) When contacted for comment Europhysics News responded by confirming that their magazine is not peer-reviewed and that the article contains ‘speculative’ claims.

5) It is certainly your right to post the same old 9/11 CTBS that has been destroyed both here and everywhere else but to claim it is new and improved is, once again, just playing fast and loose with the truth.

6) The authors are all members of, or affiliated with 9/11 ‘truther’ movements and the debunker goes on to note:

"This is essentially the equivalent of asking a group of creationists, who also happen to be scientists, whether there is any evidence for intelligent design. A qualification a good scientist does not make. The ‘evidence’ these authors presented is the usual collection of debunked tropes which didn’t take long to be debunked yet again (again again).

There is nothing new here whatsoever. Europhysics News have published a pseudoscientific article of previously debunked 9/11 tropes to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the atrocity in a cynical attempt to maximise their publication’s exposure. This has then been miss-sold as a scientific journal by media and commentators alike."

.

Thank you for that information and insight. I said from the start that was not fully convinced. I'm willing to learn.

 

[rightwinger]

Your source

Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves

 

[gipper]

Why would it fall like a tree?

Why would it fall like a tree, or how could it fall like a tree? A building is make up of a skeletal frame and the rest is window dressing. How many skeletal "corners" does a build have? Four? Four with cross structures? If you apply a force to the skeletal structure of a chair or table (I am speaking about its legs, of course) breaking it ..... on how many legs will it remain standing before it "falls"? Will it fall "over" or will it fall "straight down"? That would depend upon how much (and at what side) the damage is. Yes? And then why is it that pyrotechnic demolishing of buildings require explosive charges placed all round the building and set off at the same moment .... in order for the building to fall "straight down"? Is it because they don't want it to "fall over" like a tree?

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records
That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

Incorrect.
9-11 Research: The Perimeter Walls

Thank you but it wasn't really necessary.

Just about everything a rabid statist like Leftnutter posts, is incorrect. Sadly, he is so brainwashed he doesn't realize his own total and complete ignorance.

Like it is said...ignorance is bliss.

 

[GLASNOST]

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

I'm not trying to do anything but use sense.

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records

In that case it would require a complete cross-section to be destroyed before anything (but a side chunk) to fall off of it.

That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

So, in your imagination, you have considered a stack of records, right? And in your imagination you have thought what would happen if you slammed something into its' SIDE ..... and that would cause the whole stack to fall straight down.

Sorry, but if it had a core then it would be more like a tree than anything else and would WITHOUT DOUBT fall over like a tree. You said "core", it's your own word. If the core were cut through by a force from its' side (as is the case) then the section above the slice would topple over to one side. If the whole structure were to be weakened from this "core" then it might fall straight down around the "core" but leave the core itself standing. Thanks for playing, but you lose in either case.

 

[PredFan]

What makes you believe a beam must melt before it reaches the point of failure?

There have been many skyscraper fires and none collapsed except for the WTC.

Secondly, if you really think a fire on a few floors of a huge building like the WTC could result in their pancaking into their footprint in less than two hours, you are f-ing nuts. Maybe if they burned for a few days or weeks...maybe.

Remember Payne Stewart?...when air traffic control got no response from his plane, within minutes the Air Force had an F-16 making a visual. The Air Force does intercepts all the time...well except for 9/11, the Air Force did exactly NOTHING.

Our big huge absurdly expensive military...did nothing on the day we were attacked...and yet statists like you want more government. Have you gone mad?

Show a fire the equivalent of WTC with a huge hole knocked in the building and an accelerant like jet fuel

Why ask such a dumb question?

Can I do it too? Show me another fire equivalent to the WTC, where the building pancaked into it's footprint within 100 minutes.

You of all people, a radical leftist who HATES W with a unequaled passion...believes W's 9/11 story. You are truly a statist through and through.

I love you man and so does Jesus...but let's hope the ignorant do not inherit the earth.

Odd how you obsess over a building pan caking as it collapses

Why would it fall like a tree?

Well Spider-Man, let me help you. Damage from the other buildings, not to mention fire. We know that the building collapsed, we know that it wasn't a controlled demolition, so the most likely cause was excessive damage. There see? Easy.

 

[PredFan]

Message to Truthers and anyone who sympathizes.

Look, you want to say that powerful sources brought down the towers for their own agenda, fine. Pick your sinister entity; Bush, the military industrial complex, the Illuminati, whatever. Pick your motive, financial ruination of the US, war for profit, whatever. But why pick an impossible or at least highly unlikely route to get there?

Just say (insert your evil entity here) wanted to get the US into a war against Islamic Terror groups because (insert the nefarious motive here), so they financed, trained and organized OBL and a group of terrorists to hijack some planes and fly them into the towers?

That scenario would be MUCH harder to debunk than the controlled demolition scenario, or the fake airplane scenario, or the missile scenario.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

It has happened twice with identical results

Show me a skyscraper hit by a jet airline that didn't collapse

Looks like you lose

Show me a skyscraper that was hit by a jet airliner besides the WTC

I have a sample of two identical buildings with identical crashes yielding the same results

You have no examples of any skyscraper of any size being brought down by a controlled demo with no discernible explosions

You lose

How the **** do I lose when I haven't taken a side? Read much?

Read your OP

You read it. I stated that I wasn't sure.. I'm not being dogmatic like those of you who insist you're right

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

I'm not trying to do anything but use sense.

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records

In that case it would require a complete cross-section to be destroyed before anything (but a side chunk) to fall off of it.

That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

So, in your imagination, you have considered a stack of records, right? And in your imagination you have thought what would happen if you slammed something into its' SIDE ..... and that would cause the whole stack to fall straight down.

Sorry, but if it had a core then it would be more like a tree than anything else and would WITHOUT DOUBT fall over like a tree. You said "core", it's your own word. If the core were cut through by a force from its' side (as is the case) then the section above the slice would topple over to one side. If the whole structure were to be weakened from this "core" then it might fall straight down around the "core" but leave the core itself standing. Thanks for playing, but you lose in either case.

The plane penetrated to the core

 

[Pete7469]

You read it. I stated that I wasn't sure.. I'm not being dogmatic like those of you who insist you're right

Everyone knows you're only dogmatic about marxism and sucking cock.

Becoming a 9/11 truthtard won't make you any more of an idiot.

You've maxed that out already.

 

[GLASNOST]

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

I'm not trying to do anything but use sense.

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records

In that case it would require a complete cross-section to be destroyed before anything (but a side chunk) to fall off of it.

That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

So, in your imagination, you have considered a stack of records, right? And in your imagination you have thought what would happen if you slammed something into its' SIDE ..... and that would cause the whole stack to fall straight down.

Sorry, but if it had a core then it would be more like a tree than anything else and would WITHOUT DOUBT fall over like a tree. You said "core", it's your own word. If the core were cut through by a force from its' side (as is the case) then the section above the slice would topple over to one side. If the whole structure were to be weakened from this "core" then it might fall straight down around the "core" but leave the core itself standing. Thanks for playing, but you lose in either case.

The plane penetrated to the core

You don't know the difference between "to" and "through"?

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

I'm not trying to do anything but use sense.

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records

In that case it would require a complete cross-section to be destroyed before anything (but a side chunk) to fall off of it.

That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

So, in your imagination, you have considered a stack of records, right? And in your imagination you have thought what would happen if you slammed something into its' SIDE ..... and that would cause the whole stack to fall straight down.

Sorry, but if it had a core then it would be more like a tree than anything else and would WITHOUT DOUBT fall over like a tree. You said "core", it's your own word. If the core were cut through by a force from its' side (as is the case) then the section above the slice would topple over to one side. If the whole structure were to be weakened from this "core" then it might fall straight down around the "core" but leave the core itself standing. Thanks for playing, but you lose in either case.

The plane penetrated to the core

You don't know the difference between "to" and "through"?

Core was compromised.....Building collapsed

Science

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I thought this crazy shit went away.

Like the JFK and Moon Landings, I'll be it never goes away.

I rest my case. from my previous posts of a stupid **** troll who believes in magic bullets,ignores how there was never any evidence oswald was involved and ignores the tones of facts that prove there were multiple shooters.

oh and as i said before,THIS folks is coming from a kid who when you discuss the JFK assassination with him and prove to him oswald was innocent and there were multiple shooters,when he wont address your posts and you send a PM to him telling him you are waiting for him to address your facts,he THEN gets angry and calls you names in your pm and then puts you on ignore.comedy gold.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Nice try but WTC was not built that way

I'm not trying to do anything but use sense.

It did not have a box like frame like an Erector Set
It had an inner core with floors added like a stack of records

In that case it would require a complete cross-section to be destroyed before anything (but a side chunk) to fall off of it.

That is why it pancaked as those stacks collapsed on the floor below

So, in your imagination, you have considered a stack of records, right? And in your imagination you have thought what would happen if you slammed something into its' SIDE ..... and that would cause the whole stack to fall straight down.

Sorry, but if it had a core then it would be more like a tree than anything else and would WITHOUT DOUBT fall over like a tree. You said "core", it's your own word. If the core were cut through by a force from its' side (as is the case) then the section above the slice would topple over to one side. If the whole structure were to be weakened from this "core" then it might fall straight down around the "core" but leave the core itself standing. Thanks for playing, but you lose in either case.

The plane penetrated to the core

You don't know the difference between "to" and "through"?

remember he believes in magic bullets as well so what do you expect?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Seriously?

I see that you put a lot of thought into that response


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He knows he cant counter anything in your OP so that is his reply.hee hee.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Just thinking

No skyscraper has ever survived a direct hit from a jetliner

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

There is one common thread among all of you "truthers" not one of you has the slightest clue about science, or engineering. None.

Truthers unlike Bush dupes,did not sleep through junior high school science classes nor ignore witness testimonys "many of them being firefiigheters experienced in the sounds of explosives." or what demolition experts,and archeitects and engineers,or expert pilots have said,NOR do they keep their heads up their assess ignoring pesky facts that same as the JFK assassination,witneses who came forward and gave versions different than the governments would up dying in very mysterious deaths.


one truther who was a witness that was there in the towers matter of fact who said she heard explosives,was even on alex jones show one time and tole the listeners she has evidence of explosives she was going to bring forth and if she died anytime soon,dont believe a word of the governments explanation,that she would never take her own life.well a few days later,she ended up dying with the officical version of the governments being that she committed suicide found on a chair and hanging herself.

you REALLY need to stop being afraid of the truth and look at the OP and stop living in denial on this issue. you are doing the predfan and rightwinger thing.lol

 

[Toro]

9/11 inside nutjob is like the Jeff fisher of conspiracy theories.


lol


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[LA RAM FAN]

How many times has that happened?? Did you watch the film? What are you guys so afraid of? Finding out that Republicans were involved??

It has happened twice with identical results

Show me a skyscraper hit by a jet airline that didn't collapse

Looks like you lose

Show me a skyscraper that was hit by a jet airliner besides the WTC

There have been plenty of fires in skyscrapers and not one pancaked into its footprint...except for you know.

why do you bother talking to this paid shill,the shill who says oswald killed JFK?

Because it is fun.

Okay I hear ya. Because of your ANSWER you gave,you get a free pass from me saying to reply to him is being an idiot cause you are feeding the troll like his boss wants you to which is what i would USUALLY say to someone who replys to him since he always acts like a five year old in all his posts.

HOWEVER i totally here you. It IS fun i got to admit messing with him.I love watching him go and cry to his mommy in defeat all the time watching how he cant admit i took him to schooltwo years ago that the Rams were coming back to LA when he INSISTED two years ago they were never coming back and STILL says they are in st louis this year in defeat.

He always whines to his mommy in defeat all the time now knowing he was proven wrong by me so yeah,i hear what you say,it IS fun watching him backpeddle all the time when he knows he cant counter facts.