The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I dont deal with super-imposed videos, sorry.

Your actually quite foolish for posting that. It indicates you have a tendancy to show fake videos to prove your point. You should not have posted that..

Do you have proof the angle was off? Why would the angle be off? And there was no stop in the downward motion.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What I saw and I am sure anyone capable hearing heard on the ground was a 110 story building being reduced to a small pile of rubble and cloud of dust in about 12 seconds.

See below for reference

Can you show a video of an implosion where the detonations could not be heard because of the building’s collapse?

Even if the tower’s collapse was loud in the 110 dB range, it was a low frequency in nature. A 130 dB sharp cracks of detonations floor after floor would have been easily distinguishable, and the echoes would be on going. The sound of detonations with a higher frequency would have carried farther than the low frequency of the building’s collapse.

Sorry, you still have no evidence of planted explosives.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Let’s recap?

Can you explain what explosives were used, and where they were placed, to what end?

There is no sign of shockwaves from detonations.

There is no flash from detonations.

No detonations are audible which would have been louder and have higher frequencies than the building’s collapse?

It is easy to see why AE started to push mythical fizzle no flash explosives. There is no evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns by pressure wave.

neutronflux You post so much nonsense. When a 110-floor building collapses you not going to hear explosions on the way down, that noise would be undetectable as these explosions are occurring inside the building. People reported hearing explosions inside the building, basement floor, near the elevators and on different floors untouched by fires. Did you hear this noise personally on TV no that sound is undetectable if you not in or near or close to o the building when it collapsed.

neutronflux How do you know there no evidence the WTC towers were wired before 9/11. We need to see the security tapes to see who was coming in and out of the building late at night when workers had gone home. Where there any backup to these tapes location somewhere else where there held?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I think it’s sad people are suckered by the charlatans of the truth movement with false pictures of thermite cuts, fraudulent thermite research, and pseudoscience. People that enable the exploitation of 9/11, and ignore the real incompetence of the government.

Then provide evidence something other than inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling resulting in collapse for the WTC Towers? As seen in the video in the linked to thread below.

www.metabunk.org...



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

I find it odd I want to talk about the evidence in the actual video and audio of the Towers’ collapse. The actual moment the collapse was caught on video. From different angles. And the lack of evidence for planted explosives.

You want to change the subject to Shanksville and passports to prove planted explosives at the WTC?

Don’t worry, typical conspiracist’s behavior.....

Why is the thermite research fraudulent? Professor Harrit is a professor who did teach at a University? Are you just unhappy with the results? The Skeptics have failed to debunk his findings so not sure why you keep saying its fraudulent? The Skeptics claimed the red/grey chips were just primer paint but when they tried to ignite the primer paint at the temperatures Harrit observed nothing happened.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I found the attitude concerning the Passport odd. It is a fact personal items are expected to survive crashes. The passport was not needed as evidence, or used as a key piece of evidence. So why plant it? Why the risk? If it was planted, it could have been anyone? Like a co-conspirator wanting to make sure the individual hijacker was made known?

Where there are any passports belonging to passengers found? There were two planes that crashed in New York. It just not believable a passport would escape the plane and travel in the air for a mile before landing. Sep 11 was a Sunny day the wind to carry it would not be there. And we know this terrorist was not shown on any STV video at any airport on 9/11.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: CymaticA

Things you have to explain.


4. What the actual PNAC document says. To help you the words Pearl Harbor, appear twice.


"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

and

""Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

Neither time is it used in reference to starting a war on terror or toppling Hussein, but, in both cases refers to the US military still being better suited for a Cold War slugfest with Russia, rather than the conflicts we were more likely to see.

PNAC, in reality, was an American Israeli think tank based out of Washington. I think the hijackers were pawns in a wider conspiracy. They were basically just agents of Isreali Mossad or Saudi Arabia. What do know about their past really who recruited them? You only have to read the reports of them visiting strip clubs, drinking, smoking, and taking drugs to know they were not religious nuts willing to die for Allah. Isis would stone them to death on the spot for partying like this in public.

Anyone who has studied history knows Al Qaeda is paramilitary and controlled by Saudi Intelligence and UAE intelligence. It well documented the CIA knew these guys were coming to America to carry out attacks. When the FBI tried to get information about these guys the CIA told them nothing that would have lead to their capture or stopping them. The CIA clearly wanted these guys to be free and do want they like. It seriously would not shock me.

Bush and Cheney did everything possible to stop all information about Saudis officials meeting hijackers from being talked about in the press after 9/11. That tells me a lot they knew it was a bigger play happening here and were afraid their allies would be exposed.

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux You post so much nonsense. When a 110-floor building collapses you not going to hear explosions on the way down, that noise would be undetectable as these explosions are occurring inside the building. People reported hearing explosions inside the building, basement floor, near the elevators and on different floors untouched by fires. Did you hear this noise personally on TV no that sound is undetectable if you not in or near or close to o the building when it collapsed.

Why would you not hear detonations that would be louder and at higher frequencies than the rumble of building collapse?

Any detonation capable of cutting steel would be 130 to 140 DB, and be heard from the outside.

The collapse of the towers were initiated by buckling outer columns as attested to by video evidence. No cut columns. The core was not cut and dropped, or a shockwave would have traveled up the tower before collapse.

Something initiated the collapse when it was relatively quiet, and it was not detonations with the force to cut steel.

There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel.

There is no visible shockwaves, flashes, evidence of ejected splintered steel in buildings where tarps, traps, nor water barrels were set up to catch shrapnel. Items commonly used in implosions to protect nearby property and persons.

Example of a building not properly set up to trap shrapnel from an implosion.

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...
The public's attendance was encouraged by the then ACT Liberal Government. Katie was standing more than 400m away from the explosion but killed instantly when she was hit by a piece of flying steel.

Break

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

Any evidence splintered steel was ejected out of buildings mostly built out of steel columns at 140 km/h?

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I think it’s sad people are suckered by the charlatans of the truth movement with false pictures of thermite cuts, fraudulent thermite research, and pseudoscience. People that enable the exploitation of 9/11, and ignore the real incompetence of the government.

Then provide evidence something other than inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling resulting in collapse for the WTC Towers? As seen in the video in the linked to thread below.

www.metabunk.org...



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

I find it odd I want to talk about the evidence in the actual video and audio of the Towers’ collapse. The actual moment the collapse was caught on video. From different angles. And the lack of evidence for planted explosives.

You want to change the subject to Shanksville and passports to prove planted explosives at the WTC?

Don’t worry, typical conspiracist’s behavior.....

Why is the thermite research fraudulent? Professor Harrit is a professor who did teach at a University? Are you just unhappy with the results? The Skeptics have failed to debunk his findings so not sure why you keep saying its fraudulent? The Skeptics claimed the red/grey chips were just primer paint but when they tried to ignite the primer paint at the temperatures Harrit observed nothing happened.

I don’t know? Something about a journal caught in play to pay publishing. The papers’s peer reviewed skipped the appointed peer review referee. The person that was bypassed over as referee quit the journal over the fraudulent action of the journal. A person that helped with the paper’s writing was a peer reviewer. Another breach of ethics. The research into thermite never completed the discovery process. The samples were never independently verified by other labs. And other samples of WTC dust analyzed revealed no thermite.

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Posted by chrismohr

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

Here is another link on another study that was going to prove thermite? And after something like 50 months, people are still waiting on the results. Sort of like AE’s WTC 7 evolution’s finished report, and opening the report to public review?

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
www.internationalskeptics.com...

And if my understanding of the Harrit’s paper is correct, quote from the paper thermite was found? Or does the paper claim a thermite like reaction occurred?

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CymaticA

I found the attitude concerning the Passport odd. It is a fact personal items are expected to survive crashes. The passport was not needed as evidence, or used as a key piece of evidence. So why plant it? Why the risk? If it was planted, it could have been anyone? Like a co-conspirator wanting to make sure the individual hijacker was made known?

Where there are any passports belonging to passengers found? There were two planes that crashed in New York. It just not believable a passport would escape the plane and travel in the air for a mile before landing. Sep 11 was a Sunny day the wind to carry it would not be there. And we know this terrorist was not shown on any STV video at any airport on 9/11.

The passport was found a few blocks away on Vesey street among jet wreckage. Please cite the source claiming it was found 1 mile away.

And it’s expected personal items will survive a jet crash. Even jets knocked out of the sky by missiles.

Looters Stole Cash, Credit Cards, and Jewelry from Flight MH17 Crash Victims
Locals and armed separatist raided the scene before the investigators could even get to the suitcases.

www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: Jesushere

Do you have actual physical, video, audio, seismic evidence the towers were brought down by planted explosives.

Or you just going to talk about fraudulent thermite papers, cite truth movement pseudoscience, and rant about passports and the CIA?

a reply to: Jesushere

neutronflux How do you know there no evidence the WTC towers were wired before 9/11.

Is it false for WTC 2 the collapse initiated in the areas of fires and the impacted area by the jet as seen in the video in the linked to thread below?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

How did any implosion system survive jet impacts that cut outer and core columns, and took out services like the fire water header? And the fires? To initiate the collapse at the site of the fires and jet impact?

And the video from WTC 1 clearly shows its collapse initiated from the area of impact damage and fires too.

All with no audible evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel by pressure wave, no evidence of material being ejected on collapse initiation when the columns buckled, no evidence of a shockwave waves from detonations, no flashes of light.

a reply to: neutronflux

Nuet your arguments ignore physics

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F)

Also let's assume that by some miracle defying all know physics, that unicorns and fairies magically teleported the jet fuel to the bottom of the building, it would only at best compromise structural integrity of industrial steel ibeams, and rods in the concrete foundation of the walls

(if the invisible Man in the sky helped the fairies and unicorns at this point, and the pope prayed really hard) then at this point, the weight distribution would of been thrown off balance, and the building would of fallen at an angle or collapsed apart falling sideways like a rooted chainsawed tree that midfall decided to become dried rotwood that had been soaked for over 3 days in water.

Either way there would be a visible path of rubble that extended over 300 feet or more in one singular direction.

Which there isn't.

All pictures in the aftermath and footage shows clearly that it collapsed in a vertical direction, which is something that always happens in a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

It's not only physics, it's demolition 101. I understand though, people lost interest in books or real concrete construction experience in building and demolitions since late '98.

This isnt about reality to you, this is about 'Murica and "Amen" on your Facebook posts.

I know it's hard to pick up a book and learn a thing or two about physics and scientific measures of thermal heat and weight distributions when you can just decide you are right and troll anyone that disagrees with you online...

All you need is your confirmation bias and your Bible and YouTube vids of American warplanes bombing them "Turrurises"

But when you jump into stuff like this and don't have a single cited piece of evidence to prove your miracle of God Making sure those buildings collapsed inward of a vertical line...

(All of them none the less! Oh praise the right hand of God why did we build a memorial we should all be on our knees worshipping this miracle you claim happened at least five times a day because never in history, has such an act of unicorns, fairies and almighty invisible Man who told you he needs no proof or education just what you decide as "professor ignorance" say it is)


I've done construction, demolitions and understand a thing or two about research.

I'm surprised no one here hasn't shut you down with a video of a controlled demolition of some other skyscrapers to prove their point.

And why would they cut the base beams after the building fell? You need a thermal Lance for that and I don't see how them being shorter would help in rescue efforts.

Your whole argument is based on a term developed on a logical fallacy and we call that an "Argument from Ignorance" and I don't need no vids to prove it.

Do you know what a "positive claim" in debate is?

It's what you did accusing all evidence they showed you here as "superimposed".

When you make such statements the onus of evidence is on you to PROVE THAT.

Now get out of here and go get an education in a real subject like physics or video editing or concrete construction and demolitions, if you can get away from your unicorns and fairies long enough to ok?

You just got cooked by a master of his debate class with logic alone.
You are so done Imma have to throw you to my dog and pull another steak out the fridge.

People like you are the reason other countries call Americans stupid, thinking you can wag that tongue without a shred of evidence to back up your claim.
Put the booze down cause it's pickled your brain!

originally posted by: AutisticEvo
a reply to: neutronflux

Nuet your arguments ignore physics

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F)

Also let's assume that by some miracle defying all know physics, that unicorns and fairies magically teleported the jet fuel to the bottom of the building, it would only at best compromise structural integrity of industrial steel ibeams, and rods in the concrete foundation of the walls

(if the invisible Man in the sky helped the fairies and unicorns at this point, and the pope prayed really hard) then at this point, the weight distribution would of been thrown off balance, and the building would of fallen at an angle or collapsed apart falling sideways like a rooted chainsawed tree that midfall decided to become dried rotwood that had been soaked for over 3 days in water.

You do realise that the collapse of the towers started near the top where the damaged floors were?

originally posted by: AutisticEvo
a reply to: neutronflux


And why would they cut the base beams after the building fell?

Becasue it's difficult to remove beams that are still attached to the ground? Just a thought

a reply to: AutisticEvo

The initiation of the collapse of WTC 2 was from the inward bowing of outer vertical columns in a narrow band relative to the fires and jet impacts. Bowing caused by dropping floor trusses contracting. The bowing lead to buckling. See the video in the linked to thread below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Can you explain how the collapse was initiated by buckling, not cut columns? Why the collapse initiation has no evidence of a shockwave and audio of a detonation with the force to cut steel? Can you explain how the fantasy CD system survived the jet impacts and fire? Can you cite evidence that splintered steel was ejected at 140km/h out of the towers by detonations cutting steel?

How are buildings 95 percent empty space by design supposed to fall? Lean and fall like a solid tree?

Can you cite actual physical evidence, video, audio, seismic activity of detonations with the force to cut steel? Or you here to rant?

a reply to: AutisticEvo

The actual collapse of the towers were nothing like an implosion. From the video evidence, after the complete collapse of the floor system, long lengths of vertical columns remained standing whole seconds after the floor system collapse. Several story tall lengths. They only toppled over due to loss of lateral support. The towers did not collapse through the path of greatest resistance.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Why can I invoke actual video evidence? While all you have are falsehoods and rants?

a reply to: mrthumpy

You fail hard. Whatever structure of the building near the top that might of been compromised by the impact and explosion of the jet, would not cause a total collapse of the entire structure, buildings are built to Code for a reason, and buildings of multiple stories are specifically designed to have integrity that is stand alone at each floor and intersection. For every story added building code gets more and more demanding to insure that the floor with the most weight and pressure is stable enough to hold the rest.

You would know this if you ever worked on one.

See in construction we use a thing called SCIENCE. These things are designed to withstand and maintain integral stability against all manner of imagined catastrophe.

The taller it is the more the foundation is changed to allow it to stabilize against storm winds of set catastrophic proportion and specifically so they don't fall over the failure of top most levels.

If you actually studied how large buildings are designed you would know that if you compared floors 1 thru 5 or 1 thru 10, that after a certain point the design is changed. Some buildings even have a pyrmidical concept in layered integrity from one floor to the next.

Also not to point out the obvious but there is no part on even the biggest jet in the world that is as dense(thick) and physically durable in comparison to industrial grade steel Ibeams.

Thats why the plane blew out the glass from front to back(flying debree through wooden office doors and drywall of office interior) but did not make hardly a dent in the area of impact.

It got ripped apart by concrete and ibeam like it was made of wet toilet paper.

That's physics.
That's why anyone who understands building construction and design, and anyone with a degree in physics is never on these threads to back you naysayers up.

Because it's a little sad but also annoying how the majority of ignorance tries to cherry pick an argument and yet fails to do anything but waste our time explaining these facts and concepts of science to you like we would a child and then realize no one was paying us to educate you,

When it would save you alot of face if you acted one teensi weensi bit like a real scientist and researched what you needed to present any other argument than some teenaged potheads "Nuh Uh!"

Like I clearly explained to nuet about physics but here you are, certain of your PhD after assuming things from what you see in a video.

That's why there is a mathematical exam amongst other scientifically applicable exams before you are allowed to design or work on any project in a professional manner.

I know you didn't have to do anything but watch a video before you started full time at burger king but in this trade we don't put millions of dollars in material or peoples safety in the hands of laymen.

I haven't discussed the wtc thing in many years but it some how does not surprise me that uneducated people still think they can compromise the integrity of a building by crashing into it.

The only way you would even have a chance of knocking down the top floors by itself is if the plane was solid steel which means interior, everything including engines was like a solid cast model. And even then you might only "bend" one side of Ibeams before it either got trapped by the skeleton or bounced off.

Plus even jetfuel cannot match the explosive psi of dynamite or many other commonly used ordinance for demolition.

Don't you ever ask yourselves why no one argues in your favor that is even military demolitions or some kind of expert?

You all always argue with the other side who learned from Experts it is clear in video that it was a controlled, purposefully and well prepared demolition.

But I understand this isn't about facts or physics to you, it's about believing your country righteously murdered entire villages and bombed other cities to glass for a "good reason"

Or the sadder lot it's that they cannot come to terms that their own politicians or government would so maliciously trick you and sacrifice you into blind support for their agenda.


But keep thinking you are smart go on, tell us how you are an expert at photo and video analyses, tell us how you think while there was sooooo much debris to remove the cleanup crew said to themselves " hey Marv, I know there is a lot of clutter around those ibeams at the foundation that still needs cleaning up, I know that we are already working as hard and efficiently as we can but I say we try making this as illogical as possible and really challenge ourselves by starting with these ibeams and ignoring the rubble around them!"

You clearly like the last poster I pointed this out to have never worked construction in your whole life.

But I will give you one chance to save face here "Al Bundy" ok?

All you need to do is find a photo after the collapse that shows the UNCUT ibeams.

If you can do that, I will forget all the other inconsistencies with " a plane or fire caused vertical collapse" and never speak of an inside job again.

Deal?

But also, when you don't find those photos, I want you to look at the angle of the cut and height, and try to work out why a man with a thermal Lance would cut from the backand downward at a perpendicular angle.

That angle would only make sense if the structure on it was still intact. It's so the top pressure will cause it to slide out and the o ly safe way to do that is not a Lance but thermite charge wired and ignited at a safe distance according to OSHA standard.

But go ahead, find that photo of those same foundation ibeams prior to the cut.

If it is as you think in all your expertise then that photo easily could be out there. It's not like a photographer wanted to capture the "horror" and "destruction" of this horrible event after it was all tidy and proper roflmao!

Good night probie. I will be back to look at any evidence you and mcnuggers up there can provide lol

originally posted by: AutisticEvo
a reply to: mrthumpy

You fail hard. Whatever structure of the building near the top that might of been compromised by the impact and explosion of the jet, would not cause a total collapse of the entire structure, buildings are built to Code for a reason, and buildings of multiple stories are specifically designed to have integrity that is stand alone at each floor and intersection. For every story added building code gets more and more demanding to insure that the floor with the most weight and pressure is stable enough to hold the rest.

Each floor was capable of supporting 1300t static load. 45000t dynamic load is more than 1300t static load.

It's pretty simple really