If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: RomanMaroni

You might want to try a separate thread.
But I doubt you will get much in the way of activity on your topic.

Most of the CT believers only want to talk about the collapse.
They can't get their minds around the physics involved and therefore it must be some conspiracy.

I totally agree. It just kind of came up, and I took the opportunity to try to discuss tangible things. But inevitably the subject always gets redirected back to the same discussion that's been going nowhere for 14 years. I really don't get it. All the information is discussed in many threads already. There is no new information, and the existing information isn't enough to prove what they want it to prove. This forum has turned into one giant circlejerk. I wish these guys would put their efforts into places where real questions lie.

a reply to: Salander

Well the trouble is that the vast preponderance of the evidence works against the official story.

Let's take a look at some facts.

* No evidence of demolition explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

* No evidence of demolition hardware was ever found in the rubble at ground zero.

* No evidence of molten steel was ever found at ground zero.

* No evidence of pre-positioned thermite was ever found at ground zero.

* No 9/11 airliner flown under remote control

* United 93 did not land at Cleveland Airport

* United 93 was not shot down

* No missiles struck WTC 1, WTC 2 nor the Pentagon

* Video and photo evidence proved that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed.

* $2.3 trillion dollars was not missing and fact, the majority of that money has since been accounted for.

* Space beams were not responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings.

* Nuclear bombs were not responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings.

* ACARS did not depict any 9/11 airliner airborne after their reported crash times.

* The was no modified pod attached to United 175

* United 175 was not a military aircraft

* Molten aluminum, not molten steel, was seen flowing from the corner of WTC 2.

* Firefighters who heard explosions later attributed those sound to things that had nothing to do with explosives.

* Firefighters, structural and civil engineers, architects, demolition experts and investigators, concluded that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7 and the internal collapse of WTC 5.

* The majority of aerial calls were made from Airfones, not cell phones.

* None of the 9/11 airliners were switched.

* Remains of passengers and crew of the 9/11 airliners were recovered and have been identified.

* Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda admitted their responsibility for their 9/11 attack.

* Al-Qaeda released martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers.

* Warnings were issued to the United States from countries around the world just prior to the 9/11 attack, that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would attack America using hijacked airliners. In 1995, the Philippines issued a warning to the United States regarding Bonjinka Plot, where terrorist had planned to use hijacked airliners to kill thousands of people. One target was CIA headquarters.

+ 9/11 was not a False Flag operation.

* The white jet seen over the crash site of United 93 was a business jet, not a military aircraft, which was asked by ATC to investigate the crash site.

The list goes on and on.

a reply to: randyvs

I am right on the money!

a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok, are we talking about just some sort of centrally placed large blast, or is 'bombs' just being used as a catch-all term for cutting charges, et al?
Oh, and could you possibly provide some context or background information on the pictures you linked to? The first one certainly does look like the center of a blast zone caused by something like a backpack bomb, but the other two are rather ambiguous. The third one could have also been the result of a structure fire, and the second one really is open for interpretation without any reference.
Thanks.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

But it's not really even a circle jerk to begin with Roman.
due to the fact that there are 47 gigantic iron risers with
sway braces that form a cage thru out both buildings that
the amount of heat produced by any fire that day couldn't
possibly effect. Much less cause them to crumble in the fashion
we see in BOTH towers? Are you kidding me? And further more
we can see with 100% accurracy, the second plane enters
the building perpendicular to the cage with 47 massive
iron columns. So each cage was effected differently by
the planes. Which I know for a fact as an ironworker should
have made no difference what so ever anyway. The planes
plus the fires isn't nearly enough.

The towers should have held EEEEEASILY! No problem!
I KNOW THIS!

It is 100% stupid to accept that the buildings would even
fall the exact same way under different circumstaces obviously.

From day one when I got home from work that night I said to
my wife and I quote myself. " That is a controlled demolition,
WTF?" unquote! So I'm not the product of any CT. I am one
of the instigators and proudly so!

a reply to: randyvs

Maybe not on so large a scale, but those that believe in the OS certainly do find themselves being attacked, insulted and demeaned by those that believe otherwise. It goes both ways pretty viciously, especially on sites like this fine one right here.

a reply to: pfishy

Agreed and it's because of an emotional mix between
the two that this happens. The OS is fear based and
the truthers, which I don't claim to be feel righteousness.
I can hardly keep control and only lately have indulged here do
to that fact. Believe me it's frick'n hard. Especially when
you KNOW first hand what you're talk'n about.
There isn't ironworker with in twenty years of me
that believes those towers could fall like that and it
is discussed.

I challenge anyone to bring an ironworker to this forum
who believes that total bullsh#t. And if he can first pass
my interagation to prove he is an ironworker. Then he'll
yet have to prove to me he actually believes the OS. It's
impossible for an ironworker to believe it.

a reply to: randyvs

14 years randyvs, 14 years this has been discussed. And yet no one is any closer to proving your theory. I appreciate that you are fighting the good fight. We all need people like you out there keeping people on their toes, but honestly think about it. In your mind, it is so obvious. Since it's so obvious, why after 14 years are you in the same spot? I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm not saying you're right. I'm just saying that most people who are way more qualified don't see the obviousness of what you are saying. I'm not against you, and I will not try to refute you. I'm not any kind of engineer, so I'm not really qualified to debate this. I have to concede to the overwhelming majority that are qualified to make the assessment. Just like I don't agree with skyeagle409 on many things, but anything that talks about jets/planes, I have to concede to his assessment. He is way more qualified than me in that area.

It is 100% stupid to accept that the buildings would even
fall the exact same way under different circumstances obviously.

You are calling some really bright people stupid.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

Even really bright people can be stupid. I'm sorry but that is also the truth.
Doesn't mean they are stupid which is why I said that the way that I did.
It is stupid. I know what I'm say'n.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: randyvs

I am right on the money!

According only to lies. You sure are.

a reply to: randyvs

I understand how you feel completely. I have frequently found myself choosing not to post in an interesting thread because one of the tenets of that thread is based on something I absolutely know to be incorrect. I actually broke a keyboard with my forehead after trying to explain why the OP of a thread about Fukushima was completely misunderstanding the science behind what they were claiming.
And I'm not unfamiliar with ironworking, but I don't debate 9/11.

a reply to: pfishy

I'm going back in my corner after this cause I like my keyboard.
ROTFLMAO i've been close!

From now on all I have to say is the risers should have held.

a reply to: pfishy

Ok, are we talking about just some sort of centrally placed large blast, or is 'bombs' just being used as a catch-all term for cutting charges, et al?

Centrally-placed bombs. To properly drop the WTC buildings, they would have had to be gutted. Stairwells and shafts would have had to be cut and weakened, and firewalls removed and steel structures pre-weakened even before cutter charges are placed, a process that would have generated high noise levels, tons of debris, lots of dust and would taken about a year for each WTC building and such an operation was not likely in a fully occupied building. It took many months just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas for demolition and that was many times easier than it would have taken to prepare each WTC building for demolition.

Oh, and could you possibly provide some context or background information on the pictures you linked to? The first one certainly does look like the center of a blast zone caused by something like a backpack bomb, but the other two are rather ambiguous. The third one could have also been the result of a structure fire, and the second one really is open for interpretation without any reference.

The first photo depicts the 1993 WTC 1 bombing. Notice how the steel frames remained standing within the bomb crater. The second and third depicts steel frame of buildings. They depict what happens when explosives are placed inside steel frame buildings. The blast waves simply blows out walls and windows leaving the structure basically intact.

a reply to: randyvs

Prove me wrong.

a reply to: randyvs

I challenge anyone to bring an ironworker to this forum
who believes that total bullsh#t. And if he can first pass
my interagation to prove he is an ironworker. Then he'll
yet have to prove to me he actually believes the OS. It's
impossible for an ironworker to believe it.

Well, you know, my job as an airframe technician requires knowledge in metals and structures. Now, you know why I have indicated that you are incorrect.

a reply to: randyvs

From now on all I have to say is the risers should have held.

But they didn't. Why? I don't know, but they didn't. I don't understand why the first collapse wasn't a topple. If you watch it closely, you see it start to fall over, but then just goes straight down. Why? I don't know. I can't sit down and write an explanation because I have no idea what I'm talking about. I also don't accept explanations from people who don't know what they're talking about either. It's like two first graders arguing subatomic physics. But if a subatomic physics expert comes in and explains to them, how can we continue to argue about it? That's what the whole collapse debate seems like to me. A bunch of people who don't know what thy're talking about arguing with a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about when a lot of people who do know what they're talking about have already explained it to them. If they still have questions, why don't they find someone who knows what thy're talking about and ask them instead of continuing to argue with people who don't know what they're talking about?

a reply to: randyvs

From day one when I got home from work that night I said to
my wife and I quote myself. " That is a controlled demolition,
WTF?"

And yet, you have failed to provide evidence of demolition explosives or explosions in the WTC videos. In fact, you have failed to even point out times lines of explosions as WTC 7 collapsed and the reason is, there are no demolition explosions in that video as WTC 7 collapsed.Time for a review.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event...We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

sites.google.com...


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Dang it, now I'm arguing collapse. But ....

Centrally-placed bombs. To properly drop the WTC buildings, they would have had to be gutted. Stairwells and shafts would have had to be cut and weakened, and firewalls removed and steel structures pre-weakened even before cutter charges are placed, a process that would have generated high noise levels, tons of debris, lots of dust and would taken about a year for each WTC building and such an operation was not likely in a fully occupied building.

This is such a BS explanation. You believe that it takes 0 explosives to drop the WTC. Just a crash with a jet and lots of fire. But someone says "maybe they used explosives." Then suddenly your belief goes from 0 to this massive rigging of a building, thousands of people, and a lot of time. Remember skyeagle409, you believe it takes 0. So what if the perpetrators just used 1 explosive? After all, it only takes 0, right? What if they just used 1 to start the momentum? Or maybe 5 to get it going? How long would that take? How many people would be involved in that? You can't claim 0 then turn around and claim hundreds.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but your premise is extremely flawed.

a reply to: randyvs

The towers should have held EEEEEASILY! No problem!
I KNOW THIS!

You have to have demolition experience to make a claim like this.

Iron workers may put building up but they don't the knowledge to bring them down in seconds.

I don't understand why the first collapse wasn't a topple.

Because the structure wasn't designed for loads beyond 90 degrees.
Hit a nail off center and it bends.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I'm not arguing with someone who thinks because their some
structural plane technician over and over over again. That it
has anything to do with what i myself and every other
ironworker on the planet knows is false. That's evidence.

Who gets attacked and threatened that's evidence.



Want some more?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Ah, I misjudged the scale of the first picture, obviously. And while I could see what you were trying to point out in the third one, the second one just kind of looks like a frame under construction or demolition. What is the story behind that one, if you don't mind?