Smoking Guns: The Official Story Tellers

Discussion in '9/11' started by Primus Epic, Mar 23, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yet there is zero evidence of explosives. Lots of evidence of planes, fire and gravity however.
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Really? You're going to pull the "overly-simplistic" card? Look in the mirror for once.

    What about your "overly-simplistic" explosives claim? That's all you ever give. Never any details.

    - - - Updated - - -

    How?

    You're making a claim now explain it.

    Hey genericBob?! Isn't this considered an "overly-simplistic" explanation?
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gravity simply pulls things down,
    explosives can be used in a variety of ways,
    and account for a variety of actions.

    My question is still valid, and that is WHY should
    there be consistently sufficient mass on top and
    centered to keep destroying the as yet undamaged
    part of the tower?
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The product of the mass times the acceleration.
     
  5. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You believe that F=M*A accounts for not only the forces involved,
    but the focus of said forces so that the tower could be consistently
    destroyed.?

    BTW: F=M*A is incorrectly applied here,
    the actual formula should be KE = M*V
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They weren't 'consistently' destroyed. Each tower hesitated at the hat structures. Some structure was still visible after the collapse. Construction was critical in how they came down. No other structures like this had ever been damaged as much as they were damaged. The falling mass was tremendous and the force involved many many times greater than the design capability. Remember, this was a lightly constructed building that required interconnections to remain solid. Remove those interconnections with falling debris and it comes apart like a house of cards.
     
  7. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in this case, the "house of cards" was held together with bolts, welds, pins
    and the destruction observed, depended on all of these connections failing
    exactly in sequence, on-time, in order to produce the result observed.
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And they DID,unless you're claiming every bolt,weld and pin had exlosives on it
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The tower wasn't crushed. It was torn apart by the descending debris.

    Why are you assuming that the floors would hold together in order to shift rubble to one side or not? LOCALIZED FAILURES. You are not understanding this point.

    Let's use a scaled example. Let's use a 20' x 20' sheet of drywall as one of the "floors". Let's use 2x4s as columns around the perimeter of the sheet of drywall and also in a 5' x 3' rectangle opening in the middle (the core). Let's pound one nail, sticking out horizontally, into the inside of each 2x4 at the same level, all the way around the inside. Now let's place the drywall sheet upon the nails.

    If quickly poured gravel from 30' up onto one corner of the drywall and then quickly moved the "pouring" to the opposite corner to simulate a non-uniform debris front, do you honestly think the gravel would not punch right through the drywall where it impacted? Localized failure? You think the drywall would hold and then tilt?
     
  10. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Simple answer to a relatively simple question? Cutting down on the rhetoric can be a good thing.
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    is that how its done in a controlled demolition?
    attach explosives to every single connection within the building?
    Each explosive device may be responsible for taking out a number
    of connections from a few hundred to thousands of bolts/welds ... etc...

    My thought on this subject is the concept that in order to believe
    the official explanation of why WTC 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed,
    one needs to embrace the concept that chaotic fires & damage
    can do exactly the same job as weeks of careful study of the structure,
    & precision placement of explosives. .... what are the odds?
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given the damage,pretty good
     
  13. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could you fill that out a little bit, your short answers are most frustrating
    in that its difficult to find proper meaning in so few words.
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What damage do you think I mean?
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you believe that every controlled demolition
    needs to have explosives attached to every connection
    in the building?
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This appears to be the same circular logic
    that claims because we saw the towers
    destroyed by what we were told had been
    airliner crashes, therefore the damage was
    sufficient to cause the total collapse of the tower(s)
    and this is offered up as proof that the airliner crashes
    were indeed real.

    Right ..................... & Adam Sandler is the Easter Bunny
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no easter bunny,and the towers collapsed after being hit by aircraft....And they WERE real.
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny how it is, that not one piece of either
    "FLT11" or "FLT175" had surfaced with serial
    numbers to verify that indeed the authorities
    had examined the bits recovered and found
    a part that proves the airliner was real and
    indeed was the specified flight.
    oh yea, the collapsing tower ground everything
    up so badly that none of it could yield any useful
    information at all.

    The statement by the NIST
    "total collapse was inevitable ........ "
    is total FRAUD. do you understand this?
     
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're wrong,understand? And parts with Boeing serial numbers WERE found
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where is it documented that
    any parts specifically identifying the
    aircraft for "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" or "FLT93"
    were found & identified?
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only four big jets went missing that day,and controllers were in contact with them..If that isn't 'documentation' enough for you,too bad,get used to disappointment.
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So all you have is the allegation that the airliners
    took off from an airport and were in contact with
    air traffic control, but as to having an identifiable
    artifact from the crash site that positively confirms
    the aircraft thought to be there was indeed there,
    what do you have, a puzzle with bits missing.
    and YOU buy this? .... sad really ....
     
  23. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They aren't allegations,and it's NOT a puzzle..It can't be helped that YOU want to make it one
     
  24. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem here is that it appears you
    accept without question the mainstream media's
    assertion about 19 radical Arabs ( etc.... )
    when in fact there isn't any documented evidence
    that proves airliners were used as weapons,
    no documented evidence that explosives were not
    used to destroy WTC 1, 2 & 7
    what you have are unsupported assertions from
    the propaganda machine ( that is mainstream media )

    You say its not a puzzle .... only for people who do
    not question the official fiasco.
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <sigh> it's NOT the 'mainstream medias assertion',it's the facts,given the evidence.....Something YOU lack.
     

Share This Page