You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

reply to post by Varemia


On the contrary -- common sense says WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

I've already posted several controlled demolition experts saying that all the WTC towers were controlled demolitons and they knew that as soon as they saw the videos.

Yet NIST relies on computer animations and only allows crude explosives compared to all explosive options.

It was a cover up just as the 9/11 Commission Report was a known cover-up as the Commission stated out right.

So you say you're not defending the OS. haha.

Why should we make some assumption that goes against the direct empirical evidence of our senses?

We see that WTC 7 goes down just like a controlled demolition as do the other towers.

That's the primary evidence.

Now the OS says -- but there were fires in those buildings therefore we logically infer that fires brought the buildings down -- AGAINST the common sense empirical visual evidence.

So they are making an assumption that goes against the first primary assumption based on the first primary visual evidence.

So then people say but we didn't hear the proper explosions. Well that already opens up a can of worms -- you have tried to discredit this explosion evidence but you have given no citations -- no links for specific evidence.

So provide the evidence or else the explosion claims by witnesses stand.

You can't just say -- oh they were dismissed so they are not credible. Oh yeah? By whom and what's the source? Give us the quotes, etc.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by exponent

 

So one of the forensic investigators was "informed" that "no bombs had been detonated" and he accepted it before he began his investigation and even though it went against his first impressions. Now that is stacking the deck... I wonder who did the stacking.

You are doing. You don't have any evidence of bias here, but you're taking a single statement and indeed a single word to discredit thousands of pages of engineering

And evidence is only considered if its found immediately despite the fact the piles were burning so hot that they could not investigate large areas of Ground Zero for months? That's odd.

That's not odd. People will try to work out the causes of events immediately. Nobody found explosives.

You're reaching to a ridiculous level. Just because someone says they were informally informed that there were no explosives does not = inside job biased investigation explosives everywhere TPTB NWO and every other conspiracy you can shove in there.

Do you have any better evidence of bias because you're not going to convince anyone remotely impartial with this.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
On the contrary -- common sense says WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

There's little more that needs to be said than this approach to looking at the evidence. You've convinced yourself that the collapses were controlled demolitions, and are now trying to bias the evidence available to yourself until you can claim it's just 'common sense'.

What rot, you rely on Danny Jowenko when he says something is a controlled demolition, but he also says that the towers weren't. You don't believe him when he says that, but he becomes suddenly the world's greatest expert when he agrees with you. That's bias.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Varemia

 

I've already posted several controlled demolition experts saying that all the WTC towers were controlled demolitons and they knew that as soon as they saw the videos.

Any of those people on here because they really need to look for NEW JOBS!!!!

First of all I will say this again!!!

For The Towers
NO one repeat NO one on either side can say or work out exactly what damage was done by the impact of the planes to both the structure and fire proctection at the area of impact.
You could never work out what components from the aircraft hit what structural members of the towers will 100% certainty YOU PEOPLE CANT seem to understand that.

I have also said this is a CHAOTIC event it's not a simple 2 mass physics problem.

The MASS and velocities change during the collapse the floor design was also a problem as they could fall internally between the walls.You could bring the towers done with one of these (it would take a while)



YET for some strange reason with a 12-15 thousand ton mass (North Tower) falling YOU people think that can't.

I always when this statement is made.

The floors falling cant destroy the building below because they have held the weight for the life of the building.
That shows a total lack of understanding of the forces in the event.

The challenge to people like that (which they haven't taken because they would most likely kill themselves) is find out what is the maximum weight you can hold without dropping it then get someone to drop that from 12ft ( the height of a WTC floor) when it hits it will be doing 19 mph and will give you free entry to this.
Darwin Awards

Also regarding fire Towers & WTC7!!!!!!

Fire Engineering After 9/11

Arup Fire- After 9/11

From the Arup report

This is an understandable emotion driven response but we would propose instead that designing a structure with fire as a design load provides a more robust design solution.Simply increasing fire proofing thickness without understanding the actual structural response to heat provides no guarantees of increased safety.

Look at this piece of text below again from the Arup report, this may be a shock to many with NO construction experience or even some with

The important part bold and underlined!!!!

Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.

That report was obviously wriiten after 9/11 AND at that point we still didn't do calculations for thermal forces on buildings DUE TO FIRE SO GUESS WHAT NONE were done for the towers or WTC7!!!!!!!

WTC had structural damage and fire damage and again a rather unfortunate design for the steelwork with the large open foyer as you walked into the building.

reply to post by ugie1028


Large structural components when they fail can make extremely loud noises JUST because they heard a loud noise doesn't make it an explosion.

Have tested building components to failure from small bolts to structural members I say they are mistaken also they were under stress at the time so loud noises became explosions!!!

reply to post by exponent

This has nothing to do with "thousands of pages of engineering" as they didn't exist at the time, just 8 days after 911. But, boy, oh boy, this is getting better and better the more you try to explain it.

They hadn't found a lot of things just 8 days after the event. So this forensic investigator who was supposed to figure out why what happened happened, was "informally" informed that "no bombs had been detonated." I wonder who "informally informed" him? His brother or sister who were watching events on the teevee?

So this forensic investigator, this man who believed "charges had been placed in the building," this man who had not yet begun his investigation, was "informally" told or shown something just 8 days after the event and, rather than thinking "well it's only been a week and there's tons and tons of debris to go through," his reaction was to be "very surprised."

I wonder what this forensic investigator was told or shown, "informally" that is, just 8 days after the event that made him "very surprised." Inquiring minds would like to know.

And by the way, who's talking anything about an "inside job"? I'm talking about an incompetent investigation. This one article proves nothing alone, except maybe the character and bias of this "forensic" investigator. This is just one of many pieces of the puzzle that is 911. This piece taken along with many, many others reveals certain trends.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ugie1028

 

Large structural components when they fail can make extremely loud noises JUST because they heard a loud noise doesn't make it an explosion.

All loud noises can be confused with explosions.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ugie1028

 

Large structural components when they fail can make extremely loud noises JUST because they heard a loud noise doesn't make it an explosion.

All loud noises can be confused with explosions.

psik

That's not quite how it works. All loud noises can be called explosions by anyone, but not all explosions are explosives.

Especially in New York, if you think about it. Any boom or crash will echo off the buildings around it. The biggest evidence that the explosions were not bombs is in the videos themselves. Audio evidence from hundreds of cameras automatically disproves the explosives at collapse hypothesis.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yeah you've made these profound points already (For those living in a fantasy world I'm being sarcastic when I type profound).

The calculations used for the falling mass have already been debunked and I already posted the link.

I would repost it but you haven't responded to any of the previous links or quotes I've provided so it's kind of like talking to a wingnut living in their own fantasy world.

I'm not saying that's what you are but I'd just like some engagement with the evidence instead of grandstanding hypothesizing.

Provide some quotes and links of the calculations and guess what? I'll provide that they were already disproven.

How's that for a deal. You go first because you're making a claim here so provide some specific evidence to back up your claim.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong


First have you any experience in constuction?

I am on sites on an almost daily basis and dealing with engineers and architects I will repeat!!

Also regarding fire Towers & WTC7!!!!!!
Fire Engineering After 9/11
Arup Fire- After 9/11
From the Arup report

This is an understandable emotion driven response but we would propose instead that designing a structure with fire as a design load provides a more robust design solution.Simply increasing fire proofing thickness without understanding the actual structural response to heat provides no guarantees of increased safety.

Look at this piece of text below again from the Arup report, this may be a shock to many with NO construction experience or even some with

The important part bold and underlined!!!!

Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.

That report was obviously wriiten after 9/11 AND at that point we still didn't do calculations for thermal forces on buildings DUE TO FIRE SO GUESS WHAT NONE were done for the towers or WTC7!!!!!!!

The towers anad WTC 7 design did not take into account thermal induced forces BECAUSE NO ENGINEERS considered it until after the events of 9/11!!!!!!!

Even on the Architects and Engineers for lies sorry truth own video you can see what happens go to 3:12 and watch the collapse start!

Then go to 5:00 mark and what Gage claims he shows pictures of fires to back up his assumptions first of all I suggest you check the construction of the buildings he uses to try and back up his claims!

First of All NONE had structural damage either from aircraft of other collapsing buildings!

None are the same construction as the WTC buildings if you bother to check!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Sorry but all the construction experience in the world can not make a building completely collapse into it's own footprint from fire and asymmetrical damage.

None of what you claim is evidence that it can.

WTC 7 did not have any significant structural damage that would cause a symmetrical collapse. Fire would not cause a symmetrical collapse.

reply to post by NIcon

They hadn't found a lot of things just 8 days after the event. So this forensic investigator who was supposed to figure out why what happened happened, was "informally" informed that "no bombs had been detonated." I wonder who "informally informed" him? His brother or sister who were watching events on the teevee?

There were many experts on scene informally informing people that there were no bombs.

LINK

Wes Felter: "I'm hearing rumors that gas prices have doubled and tripled during the day in some places. Has anyone witnessed that?" Wes says: "I didn't understand how they could have collapsed; the buildings didn't look damaged below the crash sites." NPR interviewed a Berkeley engineering professor, he explained what happened. Basically the steel in the top 20 stories got very hot and softened, and collapsed on the lower 90 stories. They couldn't handle that kind of load, so they collapsed too.

Who needed an investigation at all? Maybe that's why the White House were stonewalling for so long...

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by exponent

 

This has nothing to do with "thousands of pages of engineering" as they didn't exist at the time, just 8 days after 911. But, boy, oh boy, this is getting better and better the more you try to explain it.

The irony being that you reduce your statements to only this:

And by the way, who's talking anything about an "inside job"? I'm talking about an incompetent investigation. This one article proves nothing alone, except maybe the character and bias of this "forensic" investigator. This is just one of many pieces of the puzzle that is 911. This piece taken along with many, many others reveals certain trends.

You take a single word from a trivial statement given within a few days of 911 as being some sort of proof of deficient character or bias. It's absolute nonsense NIcon. All it would take is a water cooler conversation the day after 911 to be informed no bombs had exploded. Hell I had similar conversations immediately afterwards. Allow me to give you a plausible example:

E: I didn't expect the buildings to collapse though, I bet they targeted core columns to guarantee it
M: No the news was talking about aircraft only, no bombs
E: Oh, well the building really didn't do very well at all then

How can it be the case that this is less plausible than this person suddenly gaining a specific bias against a pet theory that didn't even develop fully for a year or so. It can't be unless you're desperate to claim moral deficiencies instead of structural errors in the report.

Why are you reaching so far to try and imply this person is untrustable? Last time we chatted I'm sure you were actually reading the NIST report, why are you now trying to discredit it?

Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry but all the construction experience in the world can not make a building completely collapse into it's own footprint from fire and asymmetrical damage.

None of what you claim is evidence that it can.

The NIST report is excellent evidence that it can.

WTC 7 did not have any significant structural damage that would cause a symmetrical collapse. Fire would not cause a symmetrical collapse.

This is straight up false. WTC7 had a major failure occurring under the East Penthouse. A major section of the building falling through the building does cause significant structural damage.

What evidence do you have that it did not cause this damage while falling? We know the building shook terribly, that windows appeared to break and the top began to sag as this debris was falling through the building. Is this not significant enough for you?

Originally posted by maxella1
There were many experts on scene informally informing people that there were no bombs.
...
Who needed an investigation at all? Maybe that's why the White House were stonewalling for so long...

So now you're implying that random people on the street are part of the conspiracy.

Come on Max, this is paranoid delusion level thinking. Just because someone gets the answers right does not mean that they are paid off by some evil group. There were many people who thought there were bombs there too. Can I say they were paid off by AE911Truth to say such a thing? No, because I have no evidence.

Where is your evidence against these people?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
There were many experts on scene informally informing people that there were no bombs.
...
Who needed an investigation at all? Maybe that's why the White House were stonewalling for so long...

So now you're implying that random people on the street are part of the conspiracy.

Now that you mentioned it.. It does seems like they were there planting ideas.

Come on Max, this is paranoid delusion level thinking.

I would hate to see you banned for this kind of talk.. Please be nice.

Just because someone gets the answers right does not mean that they are paid off by some evil group. There were many people who thought there were bombs there too. Can I say they were paid off by AE911Truth to say such a thing? No, because I have no evidence.

Where is your evidence against these people?

if AE911truth were being accused of hiring the Marshmallow Man from ghostbusters to destroy the buildings, but they were saying no the buildings were blown up with bombs and we had nothing to do with it... You get my point?

reply to post by exponent

As I said, this has nothing to do with the NIST report as it hadn't even begun to be written just 8 days after the event. But I believe I've been continually quoting more than just a "single word" from the article, but what's even odder is the total disregard of "this piece along with many, many others."

If I remember right, I believe another piece of the puzzle was this same "forensic" investigator stating just about 2 months later (a time, I might add, where they had hardly scratched the surface of collecting and destroying evidence) something along the lines of.. let me see if I get it right.. "which is why it collapsed as it did." That's one amazing "forensic"er.

But I'm glad to know that "forensics" and "investigation" can be equated with "a water cooler conversation." I need to find this water cooler where all these "forensic" investigators hang out. Maybe I could hang with them and watch Kyra Phillips of CNN tell us that "no bombs had been detonated."

Stupid me, I always thought "investigating" and "forensics" was actually more difficult. I guess "Forensics 101" in college teaches one how to not pay attention to Kyra's breasts and actually listen to what she's saying.

Thanks for straightening me out.


Edit to add:
Oh, by the way, can you link me up with this news clip(s) that shows definitively that "no bombs had been detonated." I'd like to see if I would be "very surprised" while viewing it. Thanks.

reply to post by exponent


I'm curious what do you think the guy in the first video describing?

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by exponent
So now you're implying that random people on the street are part of the conspiracy.

Now that you mentioned it.. It does seems like they were there planting ideas.

I'm sorry but this just seems ridiculous to even speculate about. We're talking a few people out of thousands with no evidence and no motive or even an attempt at one.

I would hate to see you banned for this kind of talk.. Please be nice.

I'm not accusing you of being deluded, but the fact of the matter is that suspecting random members of the public because of the coincidental nature of their speech is paranoia. You're completely discounting the idea that they just guessed correctly. How else have you come to this conclusion without evidence?

I'm curious what do you think the guy in the first video describing?

I think he's describing the corner of the South Tower

Originally posted by NIcon
But I'm glad to know that "forensics" and "investigation" can be equated with "a water cooler conversation." I need to find this water cooler where all these "forensic" investigators hang out. Maybe I could hang with them and watch Kyra Phillips of CNN tell us that "no bombs had been detonated."

Stupid me, I always thought "investigating" and "forensics" was actually more difficult. I guess "Forensics 101" in college teaches one how to not pay attention to Kyra's breasts and actually listen to what she's saying.

Thanks for straightening me out.

This has now degenerated into you trying to make a bunch of jokes because you have no response to my questions. You have no good reason to try and indict this person or a whole investigation based on these comments.

If you want to believe he is morally compromised then that's up to you. You've clearly already made your mind up and nothing I say is going to make you realise the issues with your assumptions.