Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, May 30, 2016.
Did I direct my statement towards you? No, it was a general one, non specific. So, back in your box.
No, you sent it out publicly so I presumed that you expected a response from anybody that chose to do so.
Now I do not understand what your problem is with my response or what BOX you are talking about.
Considering the complexity of what happened on 9/11 I find it difficult to imagine how culprits can be determined without pretty specific evidence for how the Twin Towers were brought down.
No one needed to prove it could because we all saw it happen.When you see a dead body with a bullet wound to the head you do not need to prove a bullet wound to the head can kill a person.
No one ever proved it could not happen. Your speculation is the tall tale which is something I never engage in
They did not need to.
I grasp logic quite well you are dancing around it
The logic of physics!
The Eiffel Tower makes it obvious how the structural mass must be distributed in a tall vertical structure to fend off gravity. The 10,000 tons of wrought iron in the ET only has to support itself not more than double its own weight in concrete. Try finding an instance of structural engineers discussing or demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the Twin Towers. Each tower had 100,000 tons of steel instead of iron for 37% more height.
Maybe Muslim engineers should figure out that data and shove it into the face of the nation that put men on the Moon. The Towers were designed and built during the race to the Moon. It is really curious that in 1940 the University of Washington took only 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations that eventually caused the bridge to fail. But in 21 years we do not have physical or virtual models of the North Tower collapse. Maybe all of these computers are confusing modern engineers less competent than their 1940s counterparts.
Yes, I posted it "publicly", but I didn't address you or anyone else now, did I? Now I have quoted you twice, and you're now being addressed.
My problem, you know it do you? My problem is when people jump off the deep end for no reason, such as yourself was merely expressing the fact I haven't read every post in this thread. But I'll put my two cents worth into it.
The complexity of the issue. Yes, I am aware of the fact that 9/11 wasn't done by Al-Qaeda. It was an inside job with externals assisting it.
and when you see a rabbit being pulled from a hat you believe its real!
you are always good for a laugh!
Massive failure at apples and organges
That apparently was the agenda. NIST claims they saved a small amount of steel from the twin towers and one piece from WTC7. There is a photo of John Gross, NIST's lead engineer standing on a pile of WTC7 steel which has obviously been corroded by a chemical reaction (likely a thermitic product). Then NIST claimed they did not have a large enough sample to do any analysis, how convenient.
There is no question 9/11 could not have been pulled off without help from elements within the US government. I don't buy the claim that some other government (usually the Israeli government or the Saudi government) were the primary planners. They may have had some complicity but the primary responsibly lies with the Bush administration, who in particular is up for argument. Bush was not smart enough to plan or even take part in the planning of 9/11, he was likely just a patsy participant. It was after all a very sophisticated operation but had many flaws. It was dependent on millions of ignorant people buying a nonsensical fairy tale narrative that is scientifically impossible. Kevin Ryan published this book:
No doubt about it. I had seen footage at one point many years ago of a steel beam after the collapse, was melting away at a 45°, dripping molten steel.
911 was pulled off without any help from the US government.
The idea that they helped is laughable.
the photo shows no evidence of a corrosive chemical reaction. You are no expert and your say so is all you have.
That was Dr. Leroy Hulsey and 2 of his students working on their PHDs. They conducted a 4 year study and published a peer reviewed report called "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7". He was able to show several key points:
1. That NIST's hypothesis failed to include multiple structural elements and falsified data.
2. That even if NIST's hypothesis was correct and column 79 was actually pushed off its seat (an impossibility based on #1 above), it could not have caused a progressive collapse.
3. That even if a progressive collapse was initiated for WTC7, it could not possibly cause WTC7 to drop uniformly at free fall into its own massive structure. But no one needs Dr. Hulsey's study to figure that out, that's basic physics.
4. That the only possibly way WTC7 could drop uniformly at free fall is if all the core columns were taken out simultaneously followed 1.5 seconds by the exterior columns taken out simultaneously and created a computer model to demonstrate that. Of course that's impossible given NIST's claim that WTC7 failed strictly due office fires and that structural damage had no part in its "collapse". Although Dr. Hulsey did not articulate that the cause was controlled demolition, any fool should be able to conclude that columns taken out simultaneously could only happen in a controlled demolition.
Yeah, I wonder why he did WTC7 instead of one of the Twin Towers.
Because he was commissioned/funded by AE911Truth to review NIST's "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (NIST NCSTAR 1A) and publish a peer reviewed paper on his findings.
NIST "investigated" the "collapse" of WTC7 but did not investigate the "collapse" of the twin towers only claiming in their paper that "global collapse ensued". So there was nothing identifiable that could be analyzed with respect to NIST's report on the twin tower "collapses". And experts at AE911Truth knew NIST's hypothesis on the "collapse" of WTC7 was bogus and wanted a structural engineer forensics expert to publish all the details about it. NIST relied on Bazant's error filled hypothesis for the "reason" for the actual "collapse".
Yet another steel frame high rise is engulfed in flames and burns for hours but there was not even a hint of a potential collapse. There have been at least 60 or more of these infernos prior to and following 9/11 with no global collapse.
Opposite of Tower 7: Chinese Skyscraper Engulfed in Flames Does Not Collapse Into Own Footprint
A fire engulfed a skyscraper in the central Chinese city of Changsha for two hours and it did not collapse.
On Friday, China was shocked when a major fire broke out in a 42-story skyscraper in the central Chinese city of Changsha in Hunan province. The building belonged to the country's largest telecoms operator, but fortunately, no casualties were immediately reported despite the building being engulfed in flames for hours.
Eerily similar to the Changsha fire is the one which engulfed the UK's Grenfell Tower fire.
The Grenfell Tower fire killed at least 80 people but the final death toll is expected to rise as the investigation into the deadly fire continues. Both were widespread and posed significant threats to life and property, but none of the three fires proved capable of collapsing the structures.
Unlike the Changsha and Grenfell Tower fires which burned for hours upon end, Building 7 of the World Trade Center reportedly collapsed into its own footprint after having only small fires. NIST claimed this was a result of high temperatures which started when the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center sparked office fires in Building 7.
For comparison, the Grenfell Tower fire burned for 24 hours, charred nearly all 1,000 residences, but yet is still standing. So is the Changsha fire.
Yes, we know these fires are in completely different buildings but it is important to point out that none of these other fires so much as weakened the structure of the buildings enough for anything to fall — much less collapse into its own footprint.
Read the rest ...
Keep ignoging the elephant in the room.
That Chinese tower was not hit by an airliner before catching fire.
Massive false equivelnace an massive failure like all of your efforts
WTC7 was not hit by an airliner either.
Perhaps you forgot.
Of course being consistent does not make any sense.
Neither were the 60 or more buildings engulfed in flames that never globally collapsed. In fact the Usce Tower in Belgrade was hit multiple times by missiles in 1999 and suffered extensive fire and damage. It never collapsed, was refurbished and is currently being used as an office building. The North Tower suffered extensive fire over multiple floors in 1975 which burned for over 3 hours and was never in any danger of collapse. Steel frame buildings don't collapse, especially not globally and in a matter of seconds, accelerating directly into their own structure (at free fall for WTC7 and at 2/3 G acceleration unimpeded for the twin towers) for any cause other than controlled demolition, that's just elementary physics. Even Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead engineer is quoted as saying: "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it", yet the NIST report claims WTC7 descended at free fall for the first 100 ft. It has never happened in any natural disaster, planes, fire, damage, earthquake, any combination, any experiment (see Cardington and Broadgate fire experiments), and has never been computer modeled, because it's clearly impossible and would violate the laws of physics.
Start at the 6 minute mark:
Fireworks on the dark side of the moon!
The Official 9/11 SCAM Revisited and exposed. The real criminals are hoping much of the details will be buried with the passage of time. But I won't let you forget as long as I still breathe.
At 12:30 into the video Bush claims he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV. That was never televised, so is he making crap up or did he see it on some closed circuit video set up prior to 9/11 for his viewing pleasure? One of the Jersey Girls claims that she is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" for questioning anything about the official 9/11 narrative. Just a couple of highlights from the video:
He didn't specify first or second plane.
The first plane hit at 8:46 AM, the second plane hit at 9:03 AM, Bush entered the classroom at 9:05 AM, Bush was told of the second plane hit by Andrew Card while "My Pet Goat" was being read in the classroom. So obviously he didn't know anything about the second plane hit until after he was sitting in the classroom.
You're not familiar with the details.
Yeah okay. He was obviously just making it up that he saw it. In the video he says that when he saw it he thought " that's one bad pilot", so I guess he lied in order to tell that joke trying to be funny.
George watched a video of the aftermath of the first attack. He saw that outside the classroom. His first thought was that it must have been a terrible accident.
Truthers, trying to construct their own narrative, believe all sorts of fantasies about what he meant.
Separate names with a comma.