WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

The proof for me that the wtc was controlled demolition is enshrined in the 9/11 memorial: It's a fountain BELOW GROUND! Yes it would make sense for the building to collapse but the basement too? Why was the basement dug out and not simply filled in with concrete? Because in a controlled demolition the building collapses into the basement because the core columns are cut. If the building simply collapsed, yes maybe lower floors would get crushed but at a certain spot there would be resistance. The fact that the basement could not even be salvaged is a telling sign.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
The proof for me that the wtc was controlled demolition is enshrined in the 9/11 memorial: It's a fountain BELOW GROUND! Yes it would make sense for the building to collapse but the basement too? Why was the basement dug out and not simply filled in with concrete? Because in a controlled demolition the building collapses into the basement because the core columns are cut. If the building simply collapsed, yes maybe lower floors would get crushed but at a certain spot there would be resistance. The fact that the basement could not even be salvaged is a telling sign.

Huh? This is one of the best ones yet. I would look into this a little more if I were you. Particularly with what did and did not survive in the lower levels and about how controlled demolition works.

Originally posted by hooper
Huh? This is one of the best ones yet. I would look into this a little more if I were you. Particularly with what did and did not survive in the lower levels and about how controlled demolition works.

Yeah, isn't Judy Wood basing her "energy weapons from otuer space" theory on the claim that the basement was hardly touched? Either the basement was destroyed or it wasn't. They can't have it both ways.

I said it before and I'll say it again- these truthers need to go off to the side and duke it out amongst themselves as to what the "sinister secret plot to take over the world" actually is first and then get back to us.

reply to post by hooper



Thanks for the reply, I checked your link out and it contained a lot of useful information, especially about controlled demolition, and I think I have now changed my opinion about 9/11.

Oh wait, you provided no link, no facts, not even an argument. So thanks for nothing.

reply to post by Lord Jules

Oh wait, you provided no link, no facts,

Isn't that what truthers provide no facts? A lot of speculation just no facts.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by hooper

 

Thanks for the reply, I checked your link out and it contained a lot of useful information, especially about controlled demolition, and I think I have now changed my opinion about 9/11.

Oh wait, you provided no link, no facts, not even an argument. So thanks for nothing.

No I didn't and I generally don't. Just asked you to maybe explore the facts a little closer. Mainly because I know that whatever I would post you would deny.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Have you seen this recent report by Dr J Millette ?

It doesn't matter.
They will just move on to another theory.

No. I won't move on to another theory, because I don't need to.

Dust/chip analysis by itself, doesn't prove anything.

Pancake theory is not consistent with witness testimony. It is not consistent with what is known about the melting point of steel. It is not consistent with the manner in which the central columns were cut. There is far more evidence in support of the thermite model, than a single report showing an absence of thermite residue in dust, is capable of refuting.

Pancake theory also does not refute the number of purported hijackers who have been shown to still be alive, after the incident.

I understand that most skeptics are utterly desperate, psychologically, to avoid having to confront the idea that the American government is sufficiently psychopathic, that they would be capable of committing an attrocity of this scale on their own people; but this is an idea that must be confronted.

Please do not resort to intellectual and moral cowardice, and confuse such with rational argument.

reply to post by petrus4


NEWSFLASH...circa November 2001.....NONE of the hijackers listed by the FBI as of October 2001, have been found alive. The 19 men, as listed back then, NO ONE has seen them since September 11,2001. Update your research to THIS decade please.

Your new stance, I have to say, is a damn shame, and I hope that you are not totally swayed to your new position. I DO, however, understand your frustration, impatience or whatever you may call it, concerning the opinion that some things will never see the light of day, be taken seriously or likely contribute to a new official report of the events surrounding 9/11 furthermore informing the masses of something larger at work.

I plead that you will not sit in your new seat of complacency, because that really only means that the other side has won another of our bishops. I hope you will reconsider.

- Godspeed

reply to post by vipertech0596


Which flight manifests have you seen regarding the official report? I have been unable to seen anything produced on that, but I have seen frustrated basement truthers posting their repeated circles or denials to have these lists brought forward. Point being, that if these people are all now dead, like you insist, that may not be due to the purported flight that they died on, but from some other event or events to cover up information, further support lies or discredit the truthers and their movement, as you not so intelligibly have done here.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


How do you propose that people do that? I don't understand how it is that the opponents think that we are conspiring to assemble any number of random theories present of evidence or absent, regardless the situation. The evidence has to be completely collected and analyzed before the theory in question will be proven. Until that happens, don't you understand that minds, mouths and ideas will run rampant? What's the problem? Be part of the solution and not the problem, please!

- Cheers

reply to post by Knowtorious

Until that happens, don't you understand that minds, mouths and ideas will run rampant? What's the problem? Be part of the solution and not the problem, please!

And there's the problem. The internet minds are running rampant without a shred of proof.
Notice I said proof not speculation, not Youtube vids. I mean proof you can take to court.

All science is either physics or stamp collecting.

An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.

Ernest Rutherford

I agree with the OP. Sorry I don't have much to say that the OP didn't.

Thereis only one way to really test if it is true.

We nened to duplicate the exact same situation.

it is going to take a little while to do and will cost a bit to do it, but that will prove once and for all.

So who is in?

Originally posted by magma
Thereis only one way to really test if it is true.

We nened to duplicate the exact same situation.

it is going to take a little while to do and will cost a bit to do it, but that will prove once and for all.

So who is in?

That is ridiculous. A 1/10th scale model with compensation for the square cube law would be more than adequate.

We just need to get people to understand the square cube law.

psik

reply to post by Calex1987
take some iron, copper, aluminum, diesel fuel, mix together and see just how hot you can get the fire

reply to post by psikeyhackr

We just need to get people to understand the square cube law.

Square-cube law

The square-cube law (or cube-square law) is a mathematical principle, applied in a variety of scientific fields, which describes the relationship between the volume and the area as the shape's size increases or decreases. It was first described in 1638 by Galileo Galilei in his Two New Sciences.

Loosely speaking this principle states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its area.


Applications

Engineering

When a physical object maintains the same density and is scaled up, its mass is increased by the cube of the multiplier while its surface area only increases by the square of said multiplier. This would mean that when the larger version of the object is accelerated at the same rate as the original, more pressure would be exerted on the surface of the larger object.

Thus, just scaling up the size of an object, keeping the same material of construction (density), and same acceleration, would increase the thrust by the same scaling factor. This would indicate that the object would have less ability to resist stress and would be more prone to collapse while accelerating.

This is why large vehicles perform poorly in crash tests and why there are limits to how high buildings can be built. Similarly, the larger an object is, the less other objects would resist its motion, causing its deceleration.

link

Please help me understand.

the controlled demolition, holograph, misslie, nukes, nonsense is all a smokescreen. it's better for the gov't than UFO's in nevada covering up the U2 and other projects

all that's left to decide is if the CIA witheld the info to allow it to happen like pearl harbor, or if they were just afraid and were covering their butts

reply to post by syrinx high priest


In connection with your video have you seen this discussion ?


www.youtube.com...