9/11 No Longer Matters

http://jesusisajew.org/

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/08/very-serious-indeed/45957/

 

[video=youtube;tF1GUusfp-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF1GUusfp-0&feature=related[/video]

9/11 DOES MATTER!

The usurpers of power who are directing policy in this country right now have used 9/11 to nullify the Bill of Rights
and violate the Constitution.

 

And your plan is ...?

 

The problem is people haven't figured out why 9/11 matters.

If it is possible for airliners to have destroyed the buildings then it makes sense that it does not matter.

If it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to have destroyed the buildings then we have barely explored why it really does matter.

It means that people have to be browbeaten into believing the impossible. It means that it is OK for physicists to not ask how the steel and concrete must be distributed in a skyscraper just so it can hold itself up before we even bring up the issue of whether or not airliners could destroy them. And then gravity works the same way all over the planet so this really is an international issue.

So why don't the physicists just do something as simple as building a physical model and demonstrate how the complete collapse happened? But no they can do Higgs Boson stuff and land one ton robots on Mars. Scientists can't be bothered with trivia like skyscrapers.

Of course after 11 years they would look like stupid as*h*l*s if they now admit that airliners could not do it. This would drag in the entire academic system of European culture and this peer review tradition. It would raise the issue of experts being allowed to lie as long as laymen can be kept to ignorant to figure it out.

Like economists saying nothing about planned obsolescence 43 years after the Moon landing.

psik

 

That much fuel, heat, and fire? It is not only possible, but in fact that is what happened. Anyone who thinks it was fake (bombs planted, buildings empty, etc) needs to have their head examined.

 

You are presupposing that everyone has a knowledge of engineering and physics to be able to make that type of determination.

If the problem was that easy to comprehend then there would be no debate, anyone would be able to design buildings that could withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 or 767, or at least understand why that feat would be impossible to accomplish.

If we are to believe what you say about "anyone" who doubts the official narrative, then we must assume that
you are not only qualified to make those determinations but in addition you have the expertise to make psychiatric evaluations of countless people whom you have never even seen.

To trust that all of these things are true based on your word is asking quite a bit.

[video=youtube;MfRTlkVM9pU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MfRTlkVM9pU[/video]
Looks like the original architects of the WTC buildings needed their heads examined.

Nice touch with the eagle avatar. Why not just be honest and make it a Star of David?
Your people will dispense with that kind of pretense when they can afford to I'm sure.

[video=youtube;z8W-t57xnZg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z8W-t57xnZg#![/video]

[video=youtube;qW81Cd7nNH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=qW81Cd7nNH8[/video]

There's an MIT engineer that's "nuts" too. He must have slipped through the tracks.

We need more Jewish professors to eliminate these types of problems.

 

I love it when truthers pretend they have evidence when, in fact, they are proving just what fools and idiots they really are. Were the towers tested to withstand the impact of a 707? Yes. At the same speeds as the planes hit on 9/11? Not even close according to the guy who actually did the calculations, Leslie Robertson.

But that is immaterial. The towers clearly withstood the impact from the planes just as they were designed to do. It was the fires after the impact that brought down the towers.

 

Let's see. We can believe some nobody on the interent who likes to pretend he knows physics but has demonstrated time and time again just how utterly clueless he is, or we can believe the guy who designed the towers and who knows the engineering behind them better than anyone else. I think I will believe the engineer over the pretender. And as I just stated, it wasn't the impact of the planes that brought down the towers, but the fires after the fact. OOOOPS! Now don't you feel like a jack ass!

 

No, I just read what they say occasionally.

The government can make a $20,000,000 report with 10,000 pages but can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers that supposedly collapsed as a result of airliner impacts and fires.

So to me it is just a matter of knowing what kind of people will tolerate not having such simple information.

So where are these non-pretender engineers who can build a physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%? It looks like we have a kind of intellectual imperialism here. Laymen think what they are told by "experts" who do not have to provide adequate data on their claims. Laymen are jackasses.

psik

 

Which, as has been explained to you innumerous times, is a meaningless bunch of numbers only retards wanting something to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about so they look somewhat important are concerned with. You can't even do anything with minimum values which should be proof to everyone here that you could do no better with real numbers.

The ONLY one (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about not having that information is you. What does that tell you.

So says the layman.

You've already been told why physical models are not used and are, at best, totally retarded little toys that mean nothing in the real world. You couldn't refute the reasons why scale models aren't used, so you just bury your head in the sand and pretend your little toy is still somehow relevant. It isn't.

Like I said, I will believe the engineer who designed the towers over whiny (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es any day.

 

I love it when debunkers try to convince everyone they know everything just by calling everyone else idiots. Anyone who can think for themselves knows that this no substitute for factual information and logical argument.

It's especially amusing when the people they are calling idiots and fools have more expertise and training than they do. Even people who don't think too hard are not likely to be duped by this approach. They would have to be fools to be suckered by it or else they would have to be so spineless that they allow themselves to be intimidated into following the lead of the biggest blow hard around.

[video=youtube;GEQtxTnDusk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk[/video]

500 mph is about 430 knots.

Hmm. According to these pilots, a 767 traveling at 500 mph would take several passes to be able hit the WTC building if piloted by hand.

Lucky terrorists. Not only did they get two lucky strikes on the first try, they also managed to knock down three buildings with only two planes and make them all look exactly like controlled demolitions!

I wonder what the odds on that would be?

The government need not worry. They have Prince Lulz Alot to do their talking for them.

Come to think of it, who needs engineers, architects, chemists, witnesses or anyone else when you have him?

And if he doesn't have the answers (not likely), I'm sure his stage magician atheist bud will.


Hey Prince Lulz Alot! What are the odds?

 

Are you referring to the numbers in the NIST report or the data they put into their computer simulation, which looked nothing like the collapse of bldg 7?

I thought the poindexters at JREF had ALL the numbers.
Isn't that what the debunksters always demand?

Aren't they the ones who expect any layman who makes a comment on any of the 1000 suspicious circumstances of 9/11 to be able to be able to prove anything they say in mathematical terms and with an equal amount of rigor, even if it consists of only a simple observation which any dunce can make?

Prince Lulz Alot has decreed that laymen are not allowed to speak.

I don't know what he is, but no matter. You see his Lulzing man. WHo could ask for anything more?

We'll relay that information to all the engineers who use models that they are no longer necessary since you have decided that they are retarded.

Do you mean like the architects who made the calculations and said the towers should have been able to withstand more than one hit from a fully loaded passenger plane?

Or do you mean like the 1400 or so engineers who have signed the A&E 9/11 Truth petition?

I thought you said that they were all retarded too?

WOW. You must be some kind of real genius!

That makes it sort of puzzling why it isn't YOU who are the one doing all the calculations and showing us all your work.

I never would have thought that a bonefide genius like yourself would rely so much on lulzing instead. I guess that shows how much I know.

 

Your paper loops and washer model has nothing to do with the physics of a 110 story office building. The fact that you still don't understand that is quite telling.

 

Hey! You just told me it WAS the impact. Otherwise why did you mention the 500 mph you said the planes were going?

If the collapse of the buildings didn't have anything to do with the impact of the planes, then why bring up the speed?

NOW you're telling us "it wasn't the impact of the planes".
NOW you're saying it was the fires.

That's interesting to me because from what I have heard, there never was a steel structured high rise to collapse because of fire.

Now why would so many people be saying this if it wasn't true?

And then there are these videos of blazing infernos like the one in Madrid and the one in China that have been posted on the net.

There was the transmission of the fireman on the radio telling his boss that they could knock out the fire with a couple of lines.
There was the picture of the woman standing at the gaping hole where the plane entered.
There were all those people that made it down past the fires from floors which the fires were on.
And there was the black smoke seen billowing out which so many people said indicated a waning fire.

What's a poor slob suppose to think?

Never mind. I know. ONLY WHAT YOU TELL THEM TO.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html

 

That's funny. I thought the same thing about the NIST computer simulation.

 

That's funny. I thought the same thing about the NIST computer simulation.


But WAIT!

I HAVE BEEN ALL WRONG!

NOW I SEE THE LIGHT!

PRINCE LULZ ALOT HAS BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!


Here it is. Incontrovertible PROOF that the planes DID knock down the towers.

One of NISTS leading scientists now shows us for the first time just how they made this determination:

[video=youtube;SJ6W72U-_P0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ6W72U-_P0&feature=related[/video]

Prince Lulz Alot and company will now show us the mathematical calculations that predict the outcome of the experiment shown in the video which will include the trajectory and final resting position of each Lego that was used.

 

give that kid a raise and promote him to director of the world physics and sciences standards institute at the UN.

 

Anyone who doesn't agree is an anti-Semite.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, more psychological BS argument.

Since 6 stories were below ground there were 116 stories.

The 6th sub-basement had to be strong enough to support 115 levels. The 5th sub-basement had to be strong enough to support 114 levels. And so on all of the way up. Greater strength meant thicker steel which meant more mass.

So a gravitational collapse of the north tower would mean that the top 14 stories would have to accelerate the mass below and break the supports beneath that mass to get it moving. So how could it all come down in less than 26 seconds?

My model is a small demonstration of the exact same principles. But my model is as weak as I can make it and that is not how skyscrapers are built.

There is nothing to stop any engineering school from building a bigger, heavier and more sophisticated model than mine to demonstrate a complete collapse.

So where is it? Haven't they had enough time? In fact where is an engineering school that has even discussed doing it?

So you can talk. I am really impressed.

psik

 

Well, as usual, the ASSumptions you make are completely and totally wrong.

To show that the towers stood even after impacts far higher than what was tested for. Try to follow along. You're embarassing yourself.

That has always been my claim. You should really get your facts straight.

That has always been my claim. Once again, you lying your truthtard ass off over what I supposedly claim NOW only proves your utter dishonesty.

And? Ever seen one burn under the same circumstances as on 9/11? No. Your ignorance of the factis not an excuse.

Who said it wasn't true? Can you EVER get anything right?

You mean the one in Madrid where the part that was supported by structural steel collapsed? Thanks for proving a structural steel is succeptable to collapse.

You mean the fire fighter who was still several floors below the main fire?

Yes with the fresh wind blowing in her face. Are you also going to ignore the hundred or so people who jumped to their deaths due to the fires and their inability to escape? Of course you are. Truthers run from the truth like healthy people run from lepers.

And not one of them said the fires were little.

Only ignorant truthtards make that claim. Under controlled circumstances where the fuel load and oxygen supply is known can one make those kinds of assumptions. Truthers make those kinds of assumptions because they are retards that like to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

All one has to do is read your crap posts.

No, that would be a well informed individual.

[/QUOTE]

Nice image. Here is another picture of the same fire. Care to explain?

 

Wrong yet again. The sub-basement didn't have to be strong enough. Just the core. The core and the outer lattice are the only load bearing parts of the tower. The individual floors only had to bear the load of the floor itself, not

Because a rational, thinking person understands that the strength of the towers was in the core and the outer lattice and relies on the structural integrity of both. Once that integrity is compromised, the structure fails. Or are you going to try and pretend the vertical columns of the core could never be distored by debris or the lattice pushed out of position?

You mean your small, retarded toy you like to pretend means anything? It doesn't. You've been shown that time and time again, yet wish to ignore the rules of physics to pursue your retarded theories of lunacy.

Except for the square cube law you so conveniently ignore. Take one of your washers and increase the size by 10x. The two inch washer is now 20 inches. The weight, assuming it was .25 pounds, is not ten times bigger or 2.5 pounds, but 15.675 pounds. This simple concept is why people don't use scale models to test structural concepts. Somehow this simple concept eludes you. I don't think

When one starts with a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) premise, one ends up with a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) conclusion.

 

Actually there is. It's called MONEY.

Or rather, lack of money.

Which is why computer models are used.

 

So now you're saying that it wasn't the impact WASN'T what brought the towers down.

Yet you mentioned that L. Robertson didn't make calculations for the high speeds. Why did you mention this if you didn't think it was relevant?

(Did you think the pilots calculations on the previous page were irrelavant too? )

Was it because you would have agreed with Robertson's calculations that predicted that the towers should not have fallen even if hit by fully loaded planes?

I agree with that. If you say that fire alone brought the buildings down, which evidently you are, I do not agree with that.

No one looking at the picture of the burning towers in Madrid or China should either. Unless they are as dishonest as you are.

You claim to know what Robertson calculated for. So show us Robertson's calculations. What speed did he calculate for?

Do you suppose that he would not have imagined that there would be any fuel in the plane(s)?

Do you suppose that he or others would have forgotten to include the possible effects of fire?


If not, I don't see how you could trust his judgement. So why not just show us YOUR calculations?


But why should you mention the speed at all if it didn't have anything to do with it?

If Robertson failed to account for speed and for fuel and fire, then what did he calculate for?





I've encountered a lot of liars on the net, Prince Lulz Alot. So far you take the cake.



To all you Jews following this exchange, I hope you have the good grace to see exactly what it is that I despise with the Kol Nidre aspect of Judaism. Until you people shed this garbage, we can be nothing but enemies. Your people have demonstrated a capacity to commit cold blooded murder to advance your own causes. Those of you who don't have the stomach for it condone those who do.

What options do you leave us with? If you are expecting submission, forget it. That goes double for all the "Russian" (Khazar Jew) goon mobsters you have imported to aid you in your conquest of the US.

http://rense.com/general45/kol.htm

Essentially they are granting themselves a license to lie.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/56377/robert-legvold/red-mafiya-how-the-russian-mob-has-invaded-america

 

Holston, since you're claims are nothing but a confusing mess of lies, I will stick with just your request AND show you exactly what Robertson believes. He believes like all the other sane (i.e. non truthtards) people that it was the fires that brought down the towers, even though the towers withstood the initial impact of the planes which was far higher than calculated for. And yes, his calculations are in there.

Reflections on the World Trade Center

Since I know you're lazy and have to have your hand held through all but the easiest of tasks, his article starts on page 6. The calculation numbers are shown in Figure 3 on page 9. Enjoy!