Truthers, how was this engine planted?

[Fizz]

All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory. Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down. That is a contradiction. If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?

if it doesnt make sense then let's see your research. how much energy is released when a several ton airplane crashes into a building at several hundred miles an hour and how much explosives would be needed to create the same amount of energy?

Common sense isn't too common after all. You claim the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. If the planes themselves were sufficient then you can't simultaneously claim if explosives were used there had to be a ton of them. (meaning a lot of explosives)

so let me get this straight. you claim that you only need a little bit of explosives to bring the towers down after the airplane hit.

so how do you get the explosive into the exact point where the airplane already hit and weakened the building? how do you determine what structural areas still need to be removed?

 

[slackjawed]

I think we will eventually see a new investigation into the investigation. In other words, there are enough discrepencies in the 911 commission report as well as the NIST report that it is my opinion that at some point in the future the methods and information used to compile those reports will be investigated.

IMO there is no chance a totally new investigation based on zero assumptions will be performed.
The "truth" movement that was calling for that to happen was made up mostly of the 'hate bush' crowd. Those people wanted to investigate to find some reason to prosecute Bush and others in his administration. Now that his term is over, there are not enough 'hate bushers' to effectively push for a political investigation. The "hate bushers" are the ones that really changed the truther movement from something reasonable to more of a political witch hunt. The "hate bushers" are also the ones that robbed the truth movement of credibility and changed it into the "twoofer movement".
Such is the price for the crowd who believes that the end justifies the means. The "hate bushers" were never really interested in 'truth', unless it gave them the ability to prosecute Bush for crimes.

I also think that since buildings fell down, planes are missing and people are dead, that "zero assumptions" is impossible. There will be assumptions based on those facts right up front, no way around it. Too many people saw the second plane fly into the tower in NYC, as well as saw the plane fly into the pentagon to ignore those "assumptions".

Curvey, eots says he supports and works with groups that are pushing for such an investigation. If that is what you believe should happen then you should support and work for the same thing.

You stated everyone except for "severely brain damaged lunatics" accept the Commission's Report and even after I prove many families and first responders demand a new investigation you fuxxing ignore it like the bitch you keep proving to be.

Curvey, learn to fucking read little guy. See the part I made bold? How is that ignoring those that want a new investigation?
This exchange is a perfect example of why one can not hold an intelligent discussion with morons.

 

[CurveLight]

if it doesnt make sense then let's see your research. how much energy is released when a several ton airplane crashes into a building at several hundred miles an hour and how much explosives would be needed to create the same amount of energy?

Common sense isn't too common after all. You claim the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. If the planes themselves were sufficient then you can't simultaneously claim if explosives were used there had to be a ton of them. (meaning a lot of explosives)

so let me get this straight. you claim that you only need a little bit of explosives to bring the towers down after the airplane hit.

so how do you get the explosive into the exact point where the airplane already hit and weakened the building? how do you determine what structural areas still need to be removed?

No. That. Is. Not. What. I. Am. Claiming.

One more time. Your position is the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. You cannot then claim explosives could not have been used on the premise it would require too many people and materials to do it quietly.

 

[CurveLight]

I think we will eventually see a new investigation into the investigation. In other words, there are enough discrepencies in the 911 commission report as well as the NIST report that it is my opinion that at some point in the future the methods and information used to compile those reports will be investigated.

IMO there is no chance a totally new investigation based on zero assumptions will be performed.
The "truth" movement that was calling for that to happen was made up mostly of the 'hate bush' crowd. Those people wanted to investigate to find some reason to prosecute Bush and others in his administration. Now that his term is over, there are not enough 'hate bushers' to effectively push for a political investigation. The "hate bushers" are the ones that really changed the truther movement from something reasonable to more of a political witch hunt. The "hate bushers" are also the ones that robbed the truth movement of credibility and changed it into the "twoofer movement".
Such is the price for the crowd who believes that the end justifies the means. The "hate bushers" were never really interested in 'truth', unless it gave them the ability to prosecute Bush for crimes.

I also think that since buildings fell down, planes are missing and people are dead, that "zero assumptions" is impossible. There will be assumptions based on those facts right up front, no way around it. Too many people saw the second plane fly into the tower in NYC, as well as saw the plane fly into the pentagon to ignore those "assumptions".

Curvey, eots says he supports and works with groups that are pushing for such an investigation. If that is what you believe should happen then you should support and work for the same thing.

You stated everyone except for "severely brain damaged lunatics" accept the Commission's Report and even after I prove many families and first responders demand a new investigation you fuxxing ignore it like the bitch you keep proving to be.

Curvey, learn to fucking read little guy. See the part I made bold? How is that ignoring those that want a new investigation?
This exchange is a perfect example of why one can not hold an intelligent discussion with morons.

(divecon should pay close attention too)

You are claiming they want an investigation into the 9E Commission's Report. That is not what they want. I've posted it so many fuxxing times I'm not doing it again. They want a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions. Iow, their investigation would proceed as if the 9E CR never happened.

 

[slackjawed]

You stated everyone except for "severely brain damaged lunatics" accept the Commission's Report and even after I prove many families and first responders demand a new investigation you fuxxing ignore it like the bitch you keep proving to be.

Curvey, learn to fucking read little guy. See the part I made bold? How is that ignoring those that want a new investigation?
This exchange is a perfect example of why one can not hold an intelligent discussion with morons.

(divecon should pay close attention too)

You are claiming they want an investigation into the 9E Commission's Report. That is not what they want. I've posted it so many fuxxing times I'm not doing it again. They want a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions. Iow, their investigation would proceed as if the 9E CR never happened.

Yeah, well I don't think that will happen. What I do think will happen is an investigation into the report. I just don't think there is or will be enough support for anything else.

 

[slackjawed]

Curvey, I should add that if the investigation into the report leads to more questions than answers, then maybe a whole new investigation into the events would happen.
That is the only way I see it happening for political, financial and public opinion reasons.

 

[candycorn]

Curvey, learn to fucking read little guy. See the part I made bold? How is that ignoring those that want a new investigation?
This exchange is a perfect example of why one can not hold an intelligent discussion with morons.

(divecon should pay close attention too)

You are claiming they want an investigation into the 9E Commission's Report. That is not what they want. I've posted it so many fuxxing times I'm not doing it again. They want a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions. Iow, their investigation would proceed as if the 9E CR never happened.

Yeah, well I don't think that will happen. What I do think will happen is an investigation into the report. I just don't think there is or will be enough support for anything else.

I disagree. What morons like curvie want was a trial with apparently the entire Executie branch as defendant and a charge of guilty on all 4,000 civilians and a great deal of the military commanders.

The Commission's charge was to investigate what happened. They did. They did a job, that was in my estimation, flawless on the major points. That view of mine, by the way, is emphasized every moment that someone like fry-chief says that there were errors but continues to point out none of them.

There will be no re-investigation into the events or the Commission. It is un-warranted and un-necessary.

 

[Fizz]

Common sense isn't too common after all. You claim the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. If the planes themselves were sufficient then you can't simultaneously claim if explosives were used there had to be a ton of them. (meaning a lot of explosives)

so let me get this straight. you claim that you only need a little bit of explosives to bring the towers down after the airplane hit.

so how do you get the explosive into the exact point where the airplane already hit and weakened the building? how do you determine what structural areas still need to be removed?

No. That. Is. Not. What. I. Am. Claiming.

One more time. Your position is the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. You cannot then claim explosives could not have been used on the premise it would require too many people and materials to do it quietly.

yes i can. anyone planting explosives would have no way of knowing exactly which structural elements the plane would take out and which would remain. therefore they would all need to be wired with explosives.

 

[Gamolon]

All three towers are a mystery and I've yet to see anything conclusive from any theory. Regarding explosives, OCTAs shoot themselves in the foot by saying that could not have been the cause because it would take too many people and materials to do it covertly.......yet they claim the planes themselves brought them down. That is a contradiction.

No they don't say planes themselves brought the towers down. They say the planes caused damage along with fires which weakened the structural steel to point of failure.

If the planes alone were sufficient then why would it take tons of explosives?

Let's go through this step by step. Do you understand (and I'm not being a smart-ass by asking you this) how weights and stresses are distributed throughout a structural steel assembly of a building? Do you understand how the tube in tube design of the twin towers worked and how the weights and stresses were distributed throughout?

HowStuffWorks "The World Trade Center Tube"

The steel structure shared in the distribution of weight and stress. The planes that smashed into the towers took out how many perimeter columns upon impact? The weight that those perimeter columns supported cannot be completely ignored. The weight that they supported HAS to be taken up by the other parts of the structure. Now add in possible damage to the internal columns of the core from the impact. Then you start to WEAKEN the steel due to fire meaning it starts to lose it ability to support weight and or handle stresses. When those certain beams/columns/connections start to weaken, which supports then take up the weight from those weakening beam/columns/connections?

Let's say I have 1000lb square cement slab with 10 people holding it up. Those 10 people share the weight of the slab. If I have one person walk away, now it's 9 people to hold up the 1000lbs. How many people would need to be removed before the weight is too much for the remaining folks to hold up, thus causing their muscles to fail and bring the slab down to the ground or topple to the side with the least amount of people?

If you take away some of the perimeter columns and then a couple of the internal core columns, then weaken the rest (columns,trusses,connections) by 50% of their strength, what do you think would happen?

As far as your "how much explosives" question, it depends on what you're talking about. Thermite or actual explosives?

Why is it so hard to understand or except that plane impacts and fire can cause this to happen? Even Dr. Q thinks it was fire and structural failure that brought the towers down. He believes the floor trusses are what failed instead of the columns.

 

[Gamolon]

Common sense isn't too common after all. You claim the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. If the planes themselves were sufficient then you can't simultaneously claim if explosives were used there had to be a ton of them. (meaning a lot of explosives)

so let me get this straight. you claim that you only need a little bit of explosives to bring the towers down after the airplane hit.

so how do you get the explosive into the exact point where the airplane already hit and weakened the building? how do you determine what structural areas still need to be removed?

No. That. Is. Not. What. I. Am. Claiming.

One more time. Your position is the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. You cannot then claim explosives could not have been used on the premise it would require too many people and materials to do it quietly.

What evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible explanation?

 

[CurveLight]

so let me get this straight. you claim that you only need a little bit of explosives to bring the towers down after the airplane hit.

so how do you get the explosive into the exact point where the airplane already hit and weakened the building? how do you determine what structural areas still need to be removed?

No. That. Is. Not. What. I. Am. Claiming.

One more time. Your position is the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. You cannot then claim explosives could not have been used on the premise it would require too many people and materials to do it quietly.

What evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible explanation?

As I said already, there is nothing conclusive for any explanation.

 

[CurveLight]

so let me get this straight. you claim that you only need a little bit of explosives to bring the towers down after the airplane hit.

so how do you get the explosive into the exact point where the airplane already hit and weakened the building? how do you determine what structural areas still need to be removed?

No. That. Is. Not. What. I. Am. Claiming.

One more time. Your position is the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. You cannot then claim explosives could not have been used on the premise it would require too many people and materials to do it quietly.

yes i can. anyone planting explosives would have no way of knowing exactly which structural elements the plane would take out and which would remain. therefore they would all need to be wired with explosives.

You still don't get it. If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.

As to your theory about how would they know where the planes would hit and where they wouldn't........I think it's safe to say anything at 35 floors and below would be out of a plausible direct impact from the planes.

 

[CurveLight]

Curvey, learn to fucking read little guy. See the part I made bold? How is that ignoring those that want a new investigation?
This exchange is a perfect example of why one can not hold an intelligent discussion with morons.

(divecon should pay close attention too)

You are claiming they want an investigation into the 9E Commission's Report. That is not what they want. I've posted it so many fuxxing times I'm not doing it again. They want a new investigation beginning from zero assumptions. Iow, their investigation would proceed as if the 9E CR never happened.

Yeah, well I don't think that will happen. What I do think will happen is an investigation into the report. I just don't think there is or will be enough support for anything else.

None of this subtracts from the fact you made a false claim. Or are you willing to email NYCCAN and tell them directly they are "severely brain damaged lunatics" for demanding a new investigation?

 

[Gamolon]

No. That. Is. Not. What. I. Am. Claiming.

One more time. Your position is the planes were sufficient to bring the towers down. You cannot then claim explosives could not have been used on the premise it would require too many people and materials to do it quietly.

What evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible explanation?

As I said already, there is nothing conclusive for any explanation.

I didn't ask you to choose an explanation. I asked you what evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible possibility?

 

[Terral]

Hi Gam and Curve:

What evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible explanation?

As I said already, there is nothing conclusive for any explanation.

I didn't ask you to choose an explanation. I asked you what evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible possibility?

The 420 guy acknowledges that the single chunk of rusty engine was 'planted' by somebody, but he simply wants to know 'how.' Nobody here can produce a single picture of the crashed 100-ton Jetliner, but you waste time making 330+ posts about nothing. Flight 93 DID NOT Crash In The Empty Shanksville Field (my Topic). Just head over to my Topic and start debunking ... if you can. God knows none of you can accept my Challenge (Make My Day) and start your own Flight 93 Crashed In Shanksville Topic cuckoo.

The downside of 'knowing' the 911Truth is realizing that you are surrounded by Loyal Bushie/Obama DUPES and DoD Official Cover Story Stooges (How To Spot) ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Gamolon]

You still don't get it. If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.

IT WASN'T THE PLANES ALONE.

Whether you want to believe it or not, weakening steel to a point of failure due to fire/heat has the same result as severing a column with explosives or thermite. The fire/heat scenario just takes longer. The heat weakens the steel to a point where the weight/stresses are greater than the steel's ability to support/resist it, thus it fails. Not to mention the fact that the actual impact of the planes REMOVED some of the perimeter columns and possibly some of the core columns altogether. After the impact, the other columns/supports/connections have to pick up the weight that is no longer supported by the removed columns. Now add in fires that weakened the columns/trusses/connections. It all adds up to structural failure.

After this argument, people want to bring up the fact that no other steel skyscaper has ever collapsed due to fire. Ok, you want to make that comparison, then we have to compare apples to apples. Show me another skyscraper of 100 floors, using a tube in tube design that the towers used, and that was struck by a plane. If you can find one that had these characteristics and stood after, then we have an argument.

 

[CurveLight]

What evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible explanation?

As I said already, there is nothing conclusive for any explanation.

I didn't ask you to choose an explanation. I asked you what evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible possibility?

The immediate suppression of eyewitness testimonies, precise manner of expediting materials of the collapses out of america, the lack of testing (how did NIST/FBI know if terrorists didn't combine explosives with the hijackings?) for explosives, the long struggle (seven years and several agencies for wtc 7 alone) to conclusively establish how all three buildings collapsed, the refusal of allowing independent verification of NIST's claims, and the peer reviews by experts such as Dr. Q of stating NIST has failed to prove how the collapses occurred, and the manner in how all the buildings came down. (Plus my magic 8 Ball and the new toy I found in cocoa pebbles.
) a few years ago I had wondered if the towers had been designed in some way to come straight down in the off chance of some type of event. Placing two 110 story buildings in the middle of a metropolis without that consideration would seem irresponsible know how many other buildings and people would be killed by a horizontal collapse versus a vertical one.

 

[CurveLight]

You still don't get it. If the planes themselves were sufficient to cause enough damage for the collapse then you can't simultaneously claim it would take tons of explosives to accomplish what a single plane crash could do.

IT WASN'T THE PLANES ALONE.

Whether you want to believe it or not, weakening steel to a point of failure due to fire/heat has the same result as severing a column with explosives or thermite. The fire/heat scenario just takes longer. The heat weakens the steel to a point where the weight/stresses are greater than the steel's ability to support/resist it, thus it fails. Not to mention the fact that the actual impact of the planes REMOVED some of the perimeter columns and possibly some of the core columns altogether. After the impact, the other columns/supports/connections have to pick up the weight that is no longer supported by the removed columns. Now add in fires that weakened the columns/trusses/connections. It all adds up to structural failure.

After this argument, people want to bring up the fact that no other steel skyscaper has ever collapsed due to fire. Ok, you want to make that comparison, then we have to compare apples to apples. Show me another skyscraper of 100 floors, using a tube in tube design that the towers used, and that was struck by a plane. If you can find one that had these characteristics and stood after, then we have an argument.

The term "planes alone" means nothing else (ie explosives) was used to bring down the towers. As for the design, could you link the exact blueprints of the towers? If not, your argument focusing on the design is self defeating.

 

[Fizz]

[
The term "planes alone" means nothing else (ie explosives) was used to bring down the towers. As for the design, could you link the exact blueprints of the towers? If not, your argument focusing on the design is self defeating.

you need the actual blueprints to know what the design of the building was?

 

[Gamolon]

As I said already, there is nothing conclusive for any explanation.

I didn't ask you to choose an explanation. I asked you what evidence have you seen that makes explosives a plausible possibility?

The immediate suppression of eyewitness testimonies, precise manner of expediting materials of the collapses out of america, the lack of testing (how did NIST/FBI know if terrorists didn't combine explosives with the hijackings?) for explosives, the long struggle (seven years and several agencies for wtc 7 alone) to conclusively establish how all three buildings collapsed, the refusal of allowing independent verification of NIST's claims, and the peer reviews by experts such as Dr. Q of stating NIST has failed to prove how the collapses occurred, and the manner in how all the buildings came down. (Plus my magic 8 Ball and the new toy I found in cocoa pebbles.
) a few years ago I had wondered if the towers had been designed in some way to come straight down in the off chance of some type of event. Placing two 110 story buildings in the middle of a metropolis without that consideration would seem irresponsible know how many other buildings and people would be killed by a horizontal collapse versus a vertical one.

How does any of the above provide evidence that explosives were used??? For example. How can Dr. Q disagreeing with NIST's explanation as to how the towers collapsed provide be used as evidence that explosives are plausible?