What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[BADecker]

....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.

The buildings weren't built with 8th grade physics. The planes weren't built using 8th grade physics. The 9/11 inside job wasn't done using 8th grade physics. Nor was it reported on using even 8th grade political science, the only 8th grade science that might have a chance of convincing anyone using science from the 8th grade. Didn't you make it past the 8th grade?

Google all kinds of search words regarding the 9/11 inside job, and you will find all the evidence you need that the official report is just about the worst conspiracy theory around. Why list the info here (even though TECSHARE is doing a good job of it)? Google it.

[1714616036]

1714616036

[1714616036]

1714616036

[1714616036]

1714616036

[1714616036]

1714616036

[1714616036]

1714616036

[Spendulus]

....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.

The buildings weren't built with 8th grade physics. The planes weren't built using 8th grade physics. The 9/11 inside job wasn't done using 8th grade physics. Nor was it reported on using even 8th grade political science, the only 8th grade science that might have a chance of convincing anyone using science from the 8th grade. Didn't you make it past the 8th grade?

Google all kinds of search words regarding the 9/11 inside job, and you will find all the evidence you need that the official report is just about the worst conspiracy theory around. Why list the info here (even though TECSHARE is doing a good job of it)? Google it.

The sheer dishonesty in this thread by you and Techshare is appalling. 

In my view it makes no difference whether you purposefully push it or are simply an echo chamber of others who invented the lies.

So far not even one thing has been presented that warrants any even slightly rational investigation of any conspiracy theory relating to 911.  Not even one thing.

Magical nano-thermite, Evil Jews, Free Fall, Explosives, Controlled Detonation, Uncontrolled Detonation....

One thing I have not heard so far is the involvement of Super Evil George Bush Jr.  He was in on the Conspiracy, right?  In the back room with the Evil Jews?

[BADecker]

....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.

The buildings weren't built with 8th grade physics. The planes weren't built using 8th grade physics. The 9/11 inside job wasn't done using 8th grade physics. Nor was it reported on using even 8th grade political science, the only 8th grade science that might have a chance of convincing anyone using science from the 8th grade. Didn't you make it past the 8th grade?

Google all kinds of search words regarding the 9/11 inside job, and you will find all the evidence you need that the official report is just about the worst conspiracy theory around. Why list the info here (even though TECSHARE is doing a good job of it)? Google it.

The sheer dishonesty in this thread by you and Techshare is appalling.  

In my view it makes no difference whether you purposefully push it or are simply an echo chamber of others who invented the lies.

So far not even one thing has been presented that warrants any even slightly rational investigation of any conspiracy theory relating to 911.  Not even one thing.

Magical nano-thermite, Evil Jews, Free Fall, Explosives, Controlled Detonation, Uncontrolled Detonation....

One thing I have not heard so far is the involvement of Super Evil George Bush Jr.  He was in on the Conspiracy, right?  In the back room with the Evil Jews?

Why is it that in all that tremendous heat that weakened the buildings so much that they collapsed, you can see photos of people walking around in the gaping holes made by the planes? And if that isn't enough, people are walking around and jumping out of windows. Barely enough heat to melt wax. And the heat there is, cannot be documented to have come from the fuel because nobody knows how much fuel the planes were really carrying, and nobody knows how much of it boiled off before it could burn, and nobody knows how much of it did an oxygen-starved burn, and nobody knows what small amount of it might have burned with a truly hot, non-oxygen-starved heat, if any.

Yet, since the Towers were built to withstand the jet plane impacts, the only thing that could have weakened them sufficiently so that they would fall (provided the whole thing was not an inside job), was jet fuel heat. But nobody really has any more than a guess as to the amount of jet fuel heat that might have been generated.

Then the official story essentially bases the whole crash of the Towers on jet fuel heat that was not known to exist.

So, there you have it. But you have had it all along. And you are ignoring it... for what reasons? Too stubborn to change your story because you can't bear to be wrong? Too ignorant to understand that nobody knows where the heat came from? Too much of a state-paid propagandist?

The idea of demolition is a far more sensible idea than some piddly little bit of heat from some oxygen-starved jet fuel, jet fuel that might have barely been there at all.

Why are you so in favor of government tyranny, and so much against the people?



EDIT: I DO want to thank you, however. As long as you keep on defending the official story, the authorities who might be out to silence TECSHARE and myself will probably not be so inclined to assassinate us for all the clarity of thinking we have posted in this forum. So, thank you for that, anyway.

[Spendulus]

....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.

The buildings weren't built with 8th grade physics. The planes weren't built using 8th grade physics. The 9/11 inside job wasn't done using 8th grade physics. Nor was it reported on using even 8th grade political science, the only 8th grade science that might have a chance of convincing anyone using science from the 8th grade. Didn't you make it past the 8th grade?

Google all kinds of search words regarding the 9/11 inside job, and you will find all the evidence you need that the official report is just about the worst conspiracy theory around. Why list the info here (even though TECSHARE is doing a good job of it)? Google it.

The sheer dishonesty in this thread by you and Techshare is appalling.  

In my view it makes no difference whether you purposefully push it or are simply an echo chamber of others who invented the lies.

So far not even one thing has been presented that warrants any even slightly rational investigation of any conspiracy theory relating to 911.  Not even one thing.

Magical nano-thermite, Evil Jews, Free Fall, Explosives, Controlled Detonation, Uncontrolled Detonation....

One thing I have not heard so far is the involvement of Super Evil George Bush Jr.  He was in on the Conspiracy, right?  In the back room with the Evil Jews?

Why is it that in all that tremendous heat that weakened the buildings so much that they collapsed, you can see photos of people walking around in the gaping holes made by the planes? And if that isn't enough, people are walking around and jumping out of windows. Barely enough heat to melt wax. And the heat there is, cannot be documented to have come from the fuel because nobody knows how much fuel the planes were really carrying, and nobody knows how much of it boiled off before it could burn, and nobody knows how much of it did an oxygen-starved burn, and nobody knows what small amount of it might have burned with a truly hot, non-oxygen-starved heat, if any.

Yet, since the Towers were built to withstand the jet plane impacts, the only thing that could have weakened them sufficiently so that they would fall (provided the whole thing was not an inside job), was jet fuel heat. But nobody really has any more than a guess as to the amount of jet fuel heat that might have been generated.

Then the official story essentially bases the whole crash of the Towers on jet fuel heat that was not known to exist.
......

Now you are showing serious ignorance.  You don't even know what the "official story" is, do you?

The reason is because this is #1 and #2 on the debate points and we are on #3 and #4.  However I do have one comment on your "questions."

Why is it that in all that tremendous heat that weakened the buildings so much that they collapsed, you can see photos of people walking around in the gaping holes made by the planes? And if that isn't enough, people are walking around and jumping out of windows.

This sort of ridiculous Trufer thinking is just amazing.  Well, people are walking around and jumping to their death?  Gee, why is that?  You wouldn't think it was because after finding they could not reach the emergency exit, and the fire got closer, they chose the quick death instead of the slow agonizing one? 

How about that.

[BADecker]

....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.

The buildings weren't built with 8th grade physics. The planes weren't built using 8th grade physics. The 9/11 inside job wasn't done using 8th grade physics. Nor was it reported on using even 8th grade political science, the only 8th grade science that might have a chance of convincing anyone using science from the 8th grade. Didn't you make it past the 8th grade?

Google all kinds of search words regarding the 9/11 inside job, and you will find all the evidence you need that the official report is just about the worst conspiracy theory around. Why list the info here (even though TECSHARE is doing a good job of it)? Google it.

The sheer dishonesty in this thread by you and Techshare is appalling.  

In my view it makes no difference whether you purposefully push it or are simply an echo chamber of others who invented the lies.

So far not even one thing has been presented that warrants any even slightly rational investigation of any conspiracy theory relating to 911.  Not even one thing.

Magical nano-thermite, Evil Jews, Free Fall, Explosives, Controlled Detonation, Uncontrolled Detonation....

One thing I have not heard so far is the involvement of Super Evil George Bush Jr.  He was in on the Conspiracy, right?  In the back room with the Evil Jews?

Why is it that in all that tremendous heat that weakened the buildings so much that they collapsed, you can see photos of people walking around in the gaping holes made by the planes? And if that isn't enough, people are walking around and jumping out of windows. Barely enough heat to melt wax. And the heat there is, cannot be documented to have come from the fuel because nobody knows how much fuel the planes were really carrying, and nobody knows how much of it boiled off before it could burn, and nobody knows how much of it did an oxygen-starved burn, and nobody knows what small amount of it might have burned with a truly hot, non-oxygen-starved heat, if any.

Yet, since the Towers were built to withstand the jet plane impacts, the only thing that could have weakened them sufficiently so that they would fall (provided the whole thing was not an inside job), was jet fuel heat. But nobody really has any more than a guess as to the amount of jet fuel heat that might have been generated.

Then the official story essentially bases the whole crash of the Towers on jet fuel heat that was not known to exist.
......

Now you are showing serious ignorance.  You don't even know what the "official story" is, do you?

The reason is because this is #1 and #2 on the debate points and we are on #3 and #4.  However I do have one comment on your "questions."

Why is it that in all that tremendous heat that weakened the buildings so much that they collapsed, you can see photos of people walking around in the gaping holes made by the planes? And if that isn't enough, people are walking around and jumping out of windows.

This sort of ridiculous Trufer thinking is just amazing.  Well, people are walking around and jumping to their death?  Gee, why is that?  You wouldn't think it was because after finding they could not reach the emergency exit, and the fire got closer, they chose the quick death instead of the slow agonizing one? 

How about that.

People get scared in a small amount of heat, less than enough to boil water. Fear does a lot to a person. The fact that they were alive and walking around in the heat shows that the heat was not enough to even put a dent in Tower structural integrity.

[TECSHARE]

1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.

3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.

4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.

5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.

6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"

8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).

9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.

10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites.


You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.

A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4.  I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.  

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.

You asked what are "my claims."

For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.  

For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.

It's pretty simple.  You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."

On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall?  I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark.  Do I just get to pick anywhere?  Is there a place that supports your claim?

On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it.  So I'm not seeing what's "unusual."  Is it that they were big and heavy?  How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"

I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion. Another pathetic attempt at obfuscating true examination of the points as usual. Try to stay with the current discussion ok chief?

1- Avoided explanation. I repeat. Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Avoided explanation. Why is the fact that the beams are within the debris field automatically normal? That is like saying a seismograph of a 9.0 earthquake is normal because it is on the chart. Zero logic there. It is evidence of explosives because gravity does not transfer to lateral movement, particularly so for a massive object which has more resistant inertia, hence more force is required to change its direction. You claim there is sufficient force, yet have no explanation of how that force is transferred laterally in violation of Newton's 1st law of motion.

3- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation.

4- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation.

5- Avoided completely.

6- Avoided completely.

7- Avoided completely.

8- Avoided completely.

9- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation.

10- Avoided completely.


It is very telling how you equivocate over every word I use, yet you can not back up even your most basic assertions and simply have to resort to declaring it a fact without any substantiation whatsoever in order to prevent any actual debate of the point.

[Spendulus]

....

I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion.....

If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on.  And they're not.  Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked.

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?  

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it.

[BADecker]

....

I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion.....

If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on.  And they're not.  Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked.

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?  

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it.

The free-fall-speed question can be answered in a very easy way.

Grab a rock that will fit in you hand... not a big one... maybe only 5 pounds weight. Then drop the rock from, say, 10 feet high, and accurately time its fall to the ground through the air. Then do the same thing in 10 feet of water. Notice that the rock falls much slower through 10 feet of water than it does through 10 feet of air.

Air offers very little resistance to a falling rock. Water offers more. Attached steel beams and girders of a building offer a lot more. The near free fall speed of the Towers, and especially Bldg. 7, is not logical with the resistance offered by beams and girders to slow the speed down, except that the beam and girder strength was removed first... by demolition explosives.



EDIT: I want to thank you again, Spendy, for helping us to more clearly state in easily understandable ways, how 9/11 was an inside job. Sometimes I wonder what you really believe, and if you aren't purposely setting us up so that we can more easily prove the 9/11 inside job.

[Spendulus]

....

I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion.....

If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on.  And they're not.  Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked.

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?  

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it.

The free-fall-speed question can be answered in a very easy way.

Grab a rock that will fit in you hand... not a big one... ....

Sorry, clearly you don't even see the problem.  Tecshare's calculation of the free fall speed was from the very tip of the WTC tower.  That's not where the tower fell from.  It feel from the 78th floor or thereabouts.  Therefore, his very own calculation which shows "free fall speed" from the tip, if allowed as accurate, shows "quite a bit less than free fall speed" from the 78th.

Now run off to Youtube, absorb some more of your propaganda, come back and blab it out, maybe providing a linky.  Or even better, just admit you don't understand the physics, give it up, and go back to safe little conspiracy theories, being sure that they don't require actual physics, chemistry or math.

[BADecker]

....

I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion.....

If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on.  And they're not.  Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked.

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?  

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it.

The free-fall-speed question can be answered in a very easy way.

Grab a rock that will fit in you hand... not a big one... ....

Sorry, clearly you don't even see the problem.  Tecshare's calculation of the free fall speed was from the very tip of the WTC tower.  That's not where the tower fell from.  It feel from the 78th floor or thereabouts.  Therefore, his very own calculation which shows "free fall speed" from the tip, if allowed as accurate, shows "quite a bit less than free fall speed" from the 78th.

Now run off to Youtube, absorb some more of your propaganda, come back and blab it out, maybe providing a linky.  Or even better, just admit you don't understand the physics, give it up, and go back to safe little conspiracy theories, being sure that they don't require actual physics, chemistry or math.

Yep, you got me there. I just flew to New York, and sure enough, everything above the 78th floor or thereabouts is still floating in the air.

Chuckle.  Let me quote part of what I wrote above:

Air offers very little resistance to a falling rock. Water offers more. Attached steel beams and girders of a building offer a lot more.

Do the 5lb rock thing in air and water. Then go up on a flat-roof wood house/building - wood is not nearly as strong as steel and concrete; flat roof so that you can stand on it without falling off - and toss the rock on the roof. Notice that the building doesn't collapse at all. Even the glass of the skylight might withstand the rock being tossed on it.

The point? Resistance. Resistance keeps the near free fall from happening. If there had been resistance in the Towers, they would have fallen a lot more slowly... or not at all. Something took the resistance away. Ah, what was it? Oh yes, demolition explosives.

Thanks again Spendy.

[Spendulus]

.....Resistance. Resistance keeps the near free fall from happening. If there had been resistance in the Towers, they would have fallen a lot more slowly... or not at all. Something took the resistance away. Ah, what was it? Oh yes, demolition explosives.

You are thinking of a word, "resistance."   But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.

Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load.  I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure.  So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance."  Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude.   Your problem, not mine.

But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it.  Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.

[BADecker]

.....Resistance. Resistance keeps the near free fall from happening. If there had been resistance in the Towers, they would have fallen a lot more slowly... or not at all. Something took the resistance away. Ah, what was it? Oh yes, demolition explosives.

You are thinking of a word, "resistance."   But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.

Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load.  I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure.  So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance."  Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude.   Your problem, not mine.

But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it.  Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.

You might have thought you showed 120x load. But you didn't. You merely juggled some hypothetical numbers in such a way that you came up with 120x. Look at it the other way.

Airplanes and some unknown amount of burning fuel took out more than 95% of the structural strength of two Towers, which were designed to keep this exact thing from happening, in such a way that both of them suddenly fell at near free fall speed into their own footprint. No way. Things don't happen like this even once, to say nothing about twice at essentially the same time, and then a third building that barely had damage from the crashed Towers.

Demolition experts can barely get buildings to fall into their own footprint when they want them to. There is no way a couple of strategically placed planes could have done it. The crashes didn't do it. The people in the buildings after the crashes showed the heat didn't do it. The only thing that could have done it was demolition. 9/11 was clearly an inside job, even if it included some Arabs and some Muslims in the doing of it.



EDIT: Btw, thanks again for helping to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Spendulus]

.....Resistance. Resistance keeps the near free fall from happening. If there had been resistance in the Towers, they would have fallen a lot more slowly... or not at all. Something took the resistance away. Ah, what was it? Oh yes, demolition explosives.

You are thinking of a word, "resistance."   But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.

Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load.  I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure.  So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance."  Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude.   Your problem, not mine.

But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it.  Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.

You might have thought you showed 120x load. But you didn't. You merely juggled some hypothetical numbers in such a way that you came up with 120x. Look at it the other way.....

There is no other way.   Simply estimate the loads, and apply them to the problem.  There is no shrugging off of facts you don't like.

Now scurry off and watch some of those Youtube conspiracy movies again.  Move along.

[BADecker]

.....Resistance. Resistance keeps the near free fall from happening. If there had been resistance in the Towers, they would have fallen a lot more slowly... or not at all. Something took the resistance away. Ah, what was it? Oh yes, demolition explosives.

You are thinking of a word, "resistance."   But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.

Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load.  I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure.  So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance."  Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude.   Your problem, not mine.

But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it.  Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.

You might have thought you showed 120x load. But you didn't. You merely juggled some hypothetical numbers in such a way that you came up with 120x. Look at it the other way.....

There is no other way.   Simply estimate the loads, and apply them to the problem.  There is no shrugging off of facts you don't like.

Now scurry off and watch some of those Youtube conspiracy movies again.  Move along.

Those are some really cute words you posted there. Sounds like you are trying to apply 8th grade something to past college 30 or 40 years+ experienced construction. Try to stay on focus.

Oh, and thanks again for helping to educate us all on one of the ways that people who pulled off the 9/11 inside job try to deceive us all.

[Spendulus]

There is no other way.   Simply estimate the loads, and apply them to the problem.  There is no shrugging off of facts you don't like.

Now scurry off and watch some of those Youtube conspiracy movies again.  Move along.

Those are some really cute words you posted there. Sounds like you are trying to apply 8th grade something to past college 30 or 40 years+ experienced construction. Try to stay on focus.
....

Indeed, that is exactly what I am doing.  This does not mean that the engineering methods used in such advanced construction are at the 8th grade level.

Rather it means that the arguments used by 911 Truthers such as yourself are DEFEATED BY 8th grade level math, physics and chemistry.

That's simply a way for me to show how truly bad your attempts at argument are.  But really it reflects on the content of your 911 Truther propaganda crap rather than yourself.  Bring some more of it in.  It's actually so bad it's amusing.

[BADecker]

There is no other way.   Simply estimate the loads, and apply them to the problem.  There is no shrugging off of facts you don't like.

Now scurry off and watch some of those Youtube conspiracy movies again.  Move along.

Those are some really cute words you posted there. Sounds like you are trying to apply 8th grade something to past college 30 or 40 years+ experienced construction. Try to stay on focus.
....

Indeed, that is exactly what I am doing.  This does not mean that the engineering methods used in such advanced construction are at the 8th grade level.

Rather it means that the arguments used by 911 Truthers such as yourself are DEFEATED BY 8th grade level math, physics and chemistry.

That's simply a way for me to show how truly bad your attempts at argument are.  But really it reflects on the content of your 911 Truther propaganda crap rather than yourself.  Bring some more of it in.  It's actually so bad it's amusing.

What

That doesn't even make any sense.

The whole idea behind the truthers is to get into details about the whole 9/11 thing. This means that we need to go way beyond 8th grade thinking. Eighth grade thinking doesn't even apply.

Thanks again for supporting the fact that 9/11 was an inside job?

[Spendulus]

.....
The whole idea behind the truthers is to get into details about the whole 9/11 thing. This means that we need to go way beyond 8th grade thinking. Eighth grade thinking doesn't even apply.
....

Unfortunately you've gone way beyond 8th grade thinking in the retrograde direction.

Your arguments have repeatedly been destroyed by 8th grade phsyics.

Tough luck, dude.  Deal with it.

Find a better conspiracy to believe in.

[BADecker]

.....
The whole idea behind the truthers is to get into details about the whole 9/11 thing. This means that we need to go way beyond 8th grade thinking. Eighth grade thinking doesn't even apply.
....

Unfortunately you've gone way beyond 8th grade thinking in the retrograde direction.

Your arguments have repeatedly been destroyed by 8th grade phsyics.

Tough luck, dude.  Deal with it.

Find a better conspiracy to believe in.

That's because you have stretched 8th grade thinking all out of shape first, so that the only way to get back on track is stretch your retrograde thing in a retrograde fashion the other direction... back towards normal.

The only thing that is attempting to destroy my arguments is you. And you can't even do that. Must be because you haven't progressed beyond the 8th grade.

Because of multitudes of inconsistencies in things that are way beyond 8th grade thinking, 9/11 absolutely had to have been an inside job. You know this, yet you are trying to talk it away. Why? Pride that won't let you admit that you are wrong? Getting paid by government or the Jews to be a propagandist? Come on. Fess up.

[mki8]

what mystery ?

It was a controlled demolition
i said this while watching it live as it happened,
anyone that does not think it was a controlled demolition is just blind, ignorant, brainwashed, gullible,
and has no idea about basic physics.

The planes and theatre were just to help the propoganda

The twin towers were also built using aspestos through the entire buildings and had to be demolished anyway,
but doing it properly would have been ridiculously expensive.

[StoreBit]

I think it is  a bad history and should remain as a bad history. we shoul not remember such bad memories. its was not a good moment to recall.