What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

All that jet fuel that blew out into the air, partially unburned and boiled away, did all that damage, right? Nobody knows how much fuel actually burned. But very little of it, if any, would have burned with blowtorch effect? Why not? No blowtorches. No bellows.

In addition, there are all those people walking around in the heat. People just don't have the ability to walk around in heat that approaches 212°, the boiling point of water. And water-boiling heat is way too little to affect steel beams, steel girders, and "non-concrete" (LOL) especially through asbestos.

Nobody said anything about blowtorches.  You make that up?

Then why did you bring it up? What can you even be talking about?

Just a regular wood fire producing 1000F will reduce steel strength to 20-25%. 

Did they have a fireplace for their wood fire in the Towers?

You mentioned blowtorch and "blowtorch effect." Your words.  Which have no bearing.  Obviously, there were no people walking around.  You made up some argument about "water boiling."  For what purpose?

The only way to get jet fuel to burn efficiently in air, is to have a blowtorch effect to add air in sufficient quantities. Since you didn't understand that this is what I was getting at, you easily disqualify yourself as a realistic commenter on the 9/11 subject.

Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire.  Just like a regular wood fire.   It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.

....People walking around in the Towers .... were not sufficiently affected by .... the 9/11 fires. How do we know? They were walking around in the Towers......

The point? Not enough heat to weaken the Towers sufficiently to bring them down.
.....

  You mean that the people that were not instantly killed were actually walking around?  Well, that proves they had a few more minutes to live.  Probably also that they were upwind of the fire.  Smoke and poisons from fires incapacitate before people burn to death, incidentally.

Is this all you've got left?  Arguing that some people were walking around, possibly a hundred feet from a fire, and trying to argue that that proves these were not intense fires?

That's pretty ridiculous.

[1714010693]

1714010693

[1714010693]

1714010693

[1714010693]

1714010693

[BADecker]

Oh, Spendy. You're so funny^^^.  


US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence

Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he's probably trying to hide his crime.  American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for  the person who destroyed the evidence.

So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?

Judge and Prosecutor Destroy Evidence

For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspects conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect's defense. And see this.

(The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company.  And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)

Destruction of Videotapes

The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

Read a BUNCH more at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/no_author/us-govt-intentionally-destroyed-911-evidence/.

[Spendulus]

....www.lewrockwell.com....

lol, yeah that's a crackpot.

Destroying evidence, huh.

How long exactly should that sticking pile of junk from fallen towers have been allowed to sit in the middle of NYC?  Months?  Years?  The record of decision making on the cleanup is publicly available.

Changing the subject now are we? 

One ridiculous assertion to another.

[BADecker]

....www.lewrockwell.com....

lol, yeah that's a crackpot.

Destroying evidence, huh.

How long exactly should that sticking pile of junk from fallen towers have been allowed to sit in the middle of NYC?  Months?  Years?  The record of decision making on the cleanup is publicly available.

Changing the subject now are we? 

One ridiculous assertion to another.

Hi, Spendy. Nice hearing from you again. LOL! Are you still on the 9/11 topic?     

[BADecker]

I had heard the idea that there were no planes in the crash of the Towers, but I had never seen the convincing info that Gleb shows us here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505635.msg15148266#msg15148266. Looks like the whole thing was demolition, and the demolition guys did a good job of blowing out just enough of the buildings to make it look like planes did it.

So that's why there was no great heat from the jet fuel. There wasn't any jet fuel.

[Spendulus]

I had heard the idea that there were no planes in the crash of the Towers, but I had never seen the convincing info that Gleb shows us here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505635.msg15148266#msg15148266. Looks like the whole thing was demolition, and the demolition guys did a good job of blowing out just enough of the buildings to make it look like planes did it.

So that's why there was no great heat from the jet fuel. There wasn't any jet fuel.

wow this guy brings a whole new meaning to the word delusional. What a fuktard.

[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.

1-10 COMPLETELY AVOIDED yet again

I don't declare them debunked.  The math that I present may well do that, though.

For example let's take your gem of a rebuttal.

Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load.

Are you fucking kidding?  The 120x load still applies, for the perimeter to 40% of the total load, and for the central columns, for 60% of the total load.  Your argument is still defeated.  Get real please.  Evasions don't work, the entire record of the argument is in these posts.  Over and over you have simply denied a refutation of an argument.  Your own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES. 

And this is just prime comedy -

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.

No your bullshit about loads does not still apply, because the figure of 2000% redundancy is for ONLY THE OUTER COLUMNS which support only 40% of the load. Even if by some miracle this were true, the top of a building falling is not going to demolish an entire building below it that is was designed to hold up, especially since this would violate Newtons 3rd law of motion.

...
1. The Towers were made to withstand plane crashes;
2. There wasn't near enough heat from the plane fuel to do the job.

Neither of these assertions is true.

1. As I previously explained, the towers were designed to withstand impacts from Boeing 707 passenger airliners traveling at 600mph.

A) NYC WTC 'designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts' Frank De Martini construction boss

B) Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

C) Towers built to withstand jet impact

D) The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8 ) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

E) Sullivan consults, one of the trade center's original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane. He is told there is little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.


2. Again, as previously mentioned, in order to sufficiently weaken the steel support structure of the WTC for a collapse, temperatures in excess of 2000 F would be required for several hours, well above the 56 minutes between the impact and the collapse of the first tower. The events of that day, 3 high rise steel framed buildings ALL completely "collapsing from fire" was unprecedented, and statistically improbable.

A) We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.

B) Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling: “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

C) Based on four standard fire resistance tests that were conducted under a range of insulation and test conditions, NIST found the fire rating of the floor system to vary between 3/4hour and 2hours; in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over 2 hours.

D) National Fire Protection Association publications show that there are about 110 high rise fires in buildings over 13 stories each year.  In the last 550 of those fires not one collapsed.  

3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.

4. Buildings CAN NOT collapse at free fall speeds. The ONLY way under the laws of physics a building can fall at free fall speed is if there is NO RESISTANCE. A collapse as described by the official narrative would include resisting force as the floors impacted the lower levels beneath it creating deceleration. Again, this is not up for debate, it is a law of physics. The only possible way for the buildings to fall at those speeds would be if the supports were BLOWN OUT before the material above it impacted it.

As far as your argument about the engineer, you are seriously claiming that you think people would blame him for this as if it was some kind of engineering failure? That is beyond asinine. If the people who designed the fucking building are not authoritative enough for you, who is? Convenient you bring in this little side narrative to discredit the statement, that's why I included statements from other experts above. Perhaps they are all lying to protect themselves? Also, if it was such a engineering failure, why have none of the building codes been modified to correct for them? Hmmm....

Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire.  Just like a regular wood fire.   It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.

Except for the fact that all of these things are required to meet strict fire codes as all high rise building in NYC are in order to prevent these high temperatures. Even if they did create these temperatures, the fire still did not burn long enough to weaken the steel with isolated fires that would have wicked away the heat by conducting it thru the steel framework over such a short period. How does a short burning fire weaken structures 20-90 stories below? Answer: they don't.

[Spendulus]

....

I don't declare them debunked.  The math that I present may well do that, though.

For example let's take your gem of a rebuttal.

Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load.

Are you fucking kidding?  The 120x load still applies, for the perimeter to 40% of the total load, and for the central columns, for 60% of the total load.  Your argument is still defeated.  Get real please.  Evasions don't work, the entire record of the argument is in these posts.  Over and over you have simply denied a refutation of an argument.  Your own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES. 
....

No your bullshit about loads does not still apply, because the figure of 2000% redundancy is for ONLY THE OUTER COLUMNS which support only 40% of the load. ....

So?  Let's step through it.  We have a 120x load against which the outer columns are claimed to support a 20x load.  But that's only for 40% of the total load.

Fine.  40% of 120x is 48x.

So columns are claimed to support a 20x load but are subjected to a 48x load, and they do exactly what they must do.  They fail.  As I previously stated, your own logic requires the building to FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.

[BADecker]

....

I don't declare them debunked.  The math that I present may well do that, though.

For example let's take your gem of a rebuttal.

Oh really? Too bad that 2000% over engineered metric was for JUST THE OUTER COLUMNS. The outer columns only supported about 40% of the total load.

Are you fucking kidding?  The 120x load still applies, for the perimeter to 40% of the total load, and for the central columns, for 60% of the total load.  Your argument is still defeated.  Get real please.  Evasions don't work, the entire record of the argument is in these posts.  Over and over you have simply denied a refutation of an argument.  Your own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  
....

No your bullshit about loads does not still apply, because the figure of 2000% redundancy is for ONLY THE OUTER COLUMNS which support only 40% of the load. ....

So?  Let's step through it.  We have a 120x load against which the outer columns are claimed to support a 20x load.  But that's only for 40% of the total load.

Fine.  40% of 120x is 48x.

So columns are claimed to support a 20x load but are subjected to a 48x load, and they do exactly what they must do.  They fail.  As I previously stated, your own logic requires the building to FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.

Assuming all this structural load BS happens to be correct,
it all just decided to distribute itself appropriately to each of the remaining girders,
irrespective of their connecting beams,
so that each girder decided to collapse evenly,
at the same time as every other girder,
so that there was no topple...
the whole thing by itself,
without demolition, right?

Mwahahahahahahaha.  (<<<  I really like that laugh structure.)

[Spendulus]

....
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......

As previously noted, at the conclusion of the tower's fall, ALL POTENTIAL ENERGY of the tower's height above gound level will be changed into kinetic energy, heat, light, etc. 

Note the phrase above "heat."

What part of this is difficult to understand?

[tvbcof]

...
Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire.  Just like a regular wood fire.   It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.

I've been around wood stoves all of my life and use one now.  No wood stove I've ever seen has melted.  Nor have even the thin steel stove pipes we used back in the day.  Considering that stoves are built to induce a draft when the damper is open, the hydrocarbon fuel is seasoned and of significant quantity compared to the steel by weight, the only sink for excess thermal energy is the air in the room, and fires are effectively indefinite in duration, that seems pretty amazing.  Wouldn't you say?

[Spendulus]

...
Sure, the offices, desks, carpet, drapes, plastic, all that stuff burns in offices will produce a 1000F fire.  Just like a regular wood fire.   It will do it every time, unless someone puts the fires out.

I've been around wood stoves all of my life and use one now.  No wood stove I've ever seen has melted.  Nor have even the thin steel stove pipes we used back in the day.  Considering that stoves are built to induce a draft when the damper is open, the hydrocarbon fuel is seasoned and of significant quantity compared to the steel by weight, the only sink for excess thermal energy is the air in the room, and fires are effectively indefinite in duration, that seems pretty amazing.  Wouldn't you say?

So no wood stove has melted.  What does that imply in your opinion?

As far as I know these few local Truthers have given up arguing the strawman that the "Steel beams melted."

The issue was temperatures in the rubble heap.   Very different matter.  Although I don't know why anyone would find the temperatures in the rubble heap interesting from a building-conspiracy theory point of view.  Reminds me of related issues in heat retention of course, but perhaps people are not familiar with those.

[Spendulus]

.....
Except for the fact that all of these things are required to meet strict fire codes as all high rise building in NYC are in order to prevent these high temperatures. Even if they did create these temperatures, the fire still did not burn long enough to weaken the steel with isolated fires that would have wicked away the heat by conducting it thru the steel framework over such a short period. How does a short burning fire weaken structures 20-90 stories below? Answer: they don't.

Sorry, my reading of the matter shows estimates of about 1 pound/square foot of combustibles.  And since those include carpet, plastic, wood, I have to be skeptical that "strict fire codes" would somehow eliminate all the common materials found in offices. 

Also, your talk about "wicking away heat" actually disproves your own argument, instead of supporting it.  That raises the temperature of the beams.  And then they have less strength.  And then they bend and buckle.

[BADecker]

We don't need this. We have Spendy.


----------


New Propaganda Bill Resurrects CIA's 'Operation Mockingbird'

The New 'Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016' (S. 2692) or 'Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act' of 2016 has many characteristics of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird and has been referred to as 'The US Ministry Of Truth'. The Bill is currently being reviewed by congress The US Government Is at it again.. Same Dirty tactics from the cold war era taken from their bag of tricks, dusted off repackaged and presented to the public as a necessary means for 'National Security' Once again the free press is not only under attack it is being used as a front for a propaganda war! Just like all warfare the people pay the price!

New Propaganda Bill Resurrects CIA's 'Operation Mockingbird'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMM19RXTiXU


----------

[Spendulus]

We don't need this. We have Spendy.

...

Got it!

Actual discussion of physics, chemistry and math at the 8th grade level can't be allowed in a discussion by and with 911 Truthers because all the flaws in their logic would be exposed by junior high level thinking.

The only possible response is to accuse anyone of using actual science and principles of being a government shill!

What you actually need, Badecker, is a better conspiracy theory.

[BADecker]

We don't need this. We have Spendy.

...

Got it!

Actual discussion of physics, chemistry and math at the 8th grade level can't be allowed in a discussion by and with 911 Truthers because all the flaws in their logic would be exposed by junior high level thinking.

Thank you.

[protokol]

Big logical question still not answered by the Truthers:

If there was a controlled demolition, why were there planes as well? One or the other makes some sense, but not both.

Hint: if the building was blown up, why not just fabricate a plot that it was blown up by terrorists?

If there were just planes, why not just leave it at that and say the terrorists flew the planes? Even if the buildings hadn't have fallen (even though Spendulus has clearly shown with pretty low level physics that they could easily have fallen), the attack would still have killed hundreds or thousands and had a similar overall psychological end result on the American people.

Still waiting...

[eye-level]

I once worked in what is essentially a half sized replica of the WTC buildings located in Tulsa Oklahoma built by the same architect.  It is/was common knowledge that the building would break in two pieces at about the 20th floor if something were to happen to the structure...read not fall in on itself.

Lew Rockwell is a lone nut theorist...read not credible at all.

The airplanes were there to give it an Al Quaeda signature and to rile the American people up so they would fall for the big lie.

BADecker you must be a CIA apologist...I hear your boss pronounced just yesterday that there is no evidence that the Sauds had anything to do with it...then why the 23 page redaction?

Try again pal...your side is about to lose once and for all come about November of next year.

[BADecker]

Big logical question still not answered by the Truthers:

If there was a controlled demolition, why were there planes as well? One or the other makes some sense, but not both.

Hint: if the building was blown up, why not just fabricate a plot that it was blown up by terrorists?

If there were just planes, why not just leave it at that and say the terrorists flew the planes? Even if the buildings hadn't have fallen (even though Spendulus has clearly shown with pretty low level physics that they could easily have fallen), the attack would still have killed hundreds or thousands and had a similar overall psychological end result on the American people.

Still waiting...

America more than any country (except maybe Japan) is a movie country. Seeing is believing, especially if it is movie style.

The point was to get the buildings to fall, and make it look like Arab terrorists, so government had an excuse to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, and give Silverstein the asbestos clean-up he wanted.

Spendy's low level physics doesn't take into account the unknown, or the high level physics that went into building the Towers.

Less than 3000 were killed. There is enough ongoing investigation and questioning by many. Don't make the number too large or there would be a lot more truther questioning.

[BADecker]

I once worked in what is essentially a half sized replica of the WTC buildings located in Tulsa Oklahoma built by the same architect.  It is/was common knowledge that the building would break in two pieces at about the 20th floor if something were to happen to the structure...read not fall in on itself.

Lew Rockwell is a lone nut theorist...read not credible at all.

The airplanes were there to give it an Al Quaeda signature and to rile the American people up so they would fall for the big lie.

BADecker you must be a CIA apologist...I hear your boss pronounced just yesterday that there is no evidence that the Sauds had anything to do with it...then why the 23 page redaction?

Try again pal...your side is about to lose once and for all come about November of next year.

Show us the common knowledge please. What are the details.

You are quite an insider with Lew to know this. I mean, even Lew makes mistakes sometimes.

Please explain about the CIA apologist thing. You know where I work? Which 23 page redaction is that?

My side is God's side. Even though I make my mistakes, my side will win forever.