The first gives you a conclusive answer very quickly and simply. The second relies on the accuracy of the various assumptions and the sound level prediction methodology.
This is a no-brainer. The only reason you would use the second method instead of the first is if you knew what result the first would produce, and you didn't want to have to publish that result. And that, of course, is the option they chose.
@OneAmatoryScam If you read the FEMA report, you will see that the only known examples of eutectic erosion (hot sulphur corrosion of steel) were in fact studied by qualified experts in the lab to determine the process.
But there never were any molten steel samples found. There were only anecdotal reports, but no confirmed examples. So no testing was done on something which did not occur - this is to be expected.
Only your fictional account differs.... from reality.
@AlienEntity1 BTW, if you were secure in your position, you wouldn't have felt the need to include some sort of ad hominem attack in every single post you've made in this entire exchange. I challenge you to abandon these completely from this point forward.
If your argument is sound, you can win attacking the argument alone and not the arguer.
1. Test the steel and other items from the debris pile for residues of explosives and incendiaries (which, by the way, national fire code demands when there is evidence of melted steel).
2. Guess at which structural memebers would have to have been destroyed and how/where to initiate collapse, guess at which explosive compound would likely have been used, and estimate the sound level that would have been produced based on all of these assumptions.
@OneAmatoryScam You have made yet another false statement. National Fire Code does not demand any such thing. Firstly, it is a recommendation in arson cases, not a requirement, and this was not an arson case - the cause of the fire was very clear and well understood: flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (North Tower).
There was no evidence to suggest explosives, fire code certainly does not require that type of testing. Accelerants are the usual suspects in arson cases.
@AlienEntity1 Firefighter Eric Lawyer explaining fire code violations: /watch?v=uor8NhUr_90 More details & supporting evidence/testimony: firefightersfor911truth!org/?cat=8 Molten steel you can see for yourself: /watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE Or: /watch?v=6qv1WV4tQLw Molten aluminum, in contrast: /watch?v=jwU0IVapWCk And you can't assert the cause of the fire was known to be falling debris to support an argument that it was not caused by incendiaries - that's begging the question.
@OneAmatoryScam By your logic, no evidence can be used to support any conclusion, because all alternatives (no matter how insane) are equally valid.
You present no logical or scientific basis for your claims. NFPA 921 does not demand or recommend testing for thermite in the circumstances of the collapse of WTC 7, it was interpreted and followed correctly by competent professionals.
Sure, the loony-tune brigade are screaming..... that's what they do. The arguments are invalid.
@OneAmatoryScam Accelerants are looked for in arson cases, not explosives. But this was not an arson case, and any argument which suggests it was is a fallacious argument - the evidence is clearly against this idea.
But of course people like you think you are experts in everything, so you ignore the actual trained people and their judgements. You have zero respect for actual expertise, as it's very inconvenient to your mythology. ;)
@AlienEntity1 "... any argument which suggests it was is a fallacious argument ..."
Do you even realize what you're doing here? You're saying any argument that leads to conclusion x is false, presumably because you disagree with that conclusion, not because of the argument itself.
@OneAmatoryScam Dude, look up the definition of a fallacious argument. That's exactly what the truther meme about NFPA 921 is doing - making the false assumption which then leads to a number of erroneous conclusions.
It is a fact that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the debris from WTC 1, the evidence is clear and irrefutable. Your whole premise (and Eric Lawyer's) is a bad joke.
Of course you don't see the falsity of it - that's your delusion.
@AlienEntity1 I'll get to work giving you the specific sections of the fire code, though I would think with your constant instance that we defer to the experts on these matters that Lawyer's testimony would suffice.
As far as evidence of melted steel, a video recording that you, I, or any visitor of page can view for him or herself is worlds better than any third-party testimony, so there's nothing better I can give you there. If you have a problem with the video evidence, please explain it.
@OneAmatoryScam Look, you're completely missing the elephant in the room - that is, what caused the fires in the WTC buildings. There is no mystery, and any honest person should be able to agree to this; hence I don't think you're very honest, frankly.
Here's the thing: The flaming debris from the towers started massive fires in SEVERAL buildings, including WTC 4, 5 and 6!! RU suggesting that FDNY should've tested all those buildings for thermite???? Really?? That's insane...
@OneAmatoryScam What you're doing is basically ignoring what the purpose of the NFPA guideline is for - it is there to give guidance in fire investigations, and as such must be applied competently.
I challenge you, yes you, to address FDNY directly, in writing, and ask them why they made the decision NOT to test the WTC building debris for thermite. Get their answer and roll with it. You might learn something about the process.
@OneAmatoryScam I've saved you the trouble, here it is: '19.2.4* Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.'
@OneAmatoryScam There were no grounds for FDNY to think that accelerants were used! The fires burned as normal office fires over many hours, without firefighting.
The failure modes of the steel were: thermal expansion and shear. None of the recovered steel, upon inspection, was melted - some of it was bent, but not melted.
There were a couple of examples of eutectic erosion of the steel, which is a sulphidation process, not linked with thermitics.
You seem to have become a master at name-calling. Critical thinking, not so much.
I'll clarify. In my book, "consulting demolitions experts" who then tell you that demolitions experts do not need to be consulted is, um, not consulting demolitions experts.
@OneAmatoryScam btw, your previous false statement - that demolitions experts were not consulted - is still false, and you still have not accepted that it is false.
RU always so stubbornly wrong in life? I hope not, life must be very tough for you otherwise.
I'm glad that I have no real interest in 911. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be either a 'truther' or a 'debunker'. It's a circular argument; back and forth. I do find it funny though that debunkers accuse truthers of having a political agenda, yet can't admit that they too have their own political axe to grind. The real truth will never be found, I do know that the official theory has as many holes as any alternative one. Enjoy wasting your time while the world goes to hell!
@MyGravyWeighsATon I'm glad you're at least looking into arguments on either side of the issue, but I don't understand how one can have no interest in something so important. Regardless, I applaud your skepticism, and I implore you to continue to reserve judgement until you're satisfied with the evidence either side presents.
It's not a circular argument though. But the "debunkers" thrive on these; they rely on portions of the NIST report to argue their position that NIST's analysis is correct.
Once again the building slows down instantly after it crushes the first floor, then continues to slow down, all the way to the bottom. The top part of the building meets the resistance of the building below that pushes against the acceleration of the free fall, causing it to decelerate. All three 9/11 buildings fell at near free fall speed, with no deceleration anywhere in between. Watch 9/11 blueprint for truth for a REAL in depth explanation. VOTE THUMBS UP IF YOU AGREE!
The towers DID NOT FALL 'at near freefall speed' except in the minds of a cult of realty-warping conspiracists.
64% is not 'near' - it's actually FAR. Try graduating college with 64% and argue with your prof that it's 'nearly' 100% so you should be getting an A+!! LOL
You do not understand the subject, and you don't even care what is real and what isn't. Your political agenda to frame the Fed is transparent.
@AlienEntity1 Case and point. You have not done the proper research. I'm not going to spoon feed this stuff to you. All I care about is the truth. I have no reason to WANT my government to be a problem, what a terrible lie. Why can't you even consider the possibility? your false accusations and misinformation is a clear case of delusion based on trust. You won't even consider the possibility. That in itself is a dangerous notion.
@notSiD Garbage. Pure garbage you're spewing. I showed the fallacious nature of your 'near freefall' canard, you can't accept the facts dude.
You can't twist reality to fit your agenda. That won't work. Your claims fail for that reason alone. Stop making them or show yourself to be dishonest or very foolish indeed.
@AlienEntity1 Call it garbage all you want, It's your first amendment right, but you have shown nothing about anything. At least I provide a direction you can use to follow my argument and check for yourself. There are plenty of sources for the collapse speed of the towers. Do you think any of your top-down collapse videos even come close to 200% free fall speed? or even 300%? I am the first to think to compare, as I haven't seen anyone else do it. But i'm curious to find out.
@notSiD No, it's not my first amendment right dude. I don't live in America, so I don't require America's approval to make a truthful statement and expose your disinformation attempts.
You are going to have to ignore a mountain of empirical (yes, verifiable) seismic and video evidence which shows, very clearly, the towers did NOT collapse in 10 seconds.
You will do this because you cannot accept the truth, as it injures your bizarre conspiracy cult theories. So what - I don't care.
@notSiD Just by your last post it demonstrates that
a) You are evading the careful and accurate measurements done by physics toolkit, showing only 64% freefall, thus disproving any claims of 'near' freefall.
b) by introducing the hallucinated number of 200% or 300% (with no valid basis) you are attempting to shift the conversation away from the simple fact that your initial claim is garbage and wrong.
In fact real CD's do NOT collapse at freefall. I'll get some figures shortly.
@notSiD You are certainly NOT the first person to compare, and you are only now beginning to acquire some proper information (far too late, since you've already swallowed the truther koolaid) which you will now be forced to rationalize away - inconvenient truth?
Yeah, truther hero David Chandler got a nasty shock when he applied his measuring tools to real CD's and discovered 'they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall.' Ooops! LOL
@notSiD Controlled demolition and acceleration. Contrary to 9/11 Truther mythology (as parroted by you) 'The entire process is driven by gravity but the downward velocities are attenuated by the energy absorption at the point of impact, and the motion will accelerate less than a case of free fall; it may even decelerate'
Factors Affecting the Numerical Modelling of Demolition by Explosives" In Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol 8 (1994)
@AlienEntity1 Okay, but the fact that top-down collapses are much slower is still true, So I don't see how that contradicts anything. Obviously comparing them is something that must be done, and i'm talking about an actual comparison based in science.
@AlienEntity1 Oh and one last thing, the slowly falling dust cloud doesn't count as part of the towers collapse. I know that should go without saying, but I can see where the confusion lies form looking at the video. But really it's a moot point. even the 9/11 commission report said it took 10 seconds for it to fall. The exact time frame is hidden in smoke, but the fact that it was close to free fall speed is unavoidably true.
@notSiD Again, absolute garbage from you. In fact it's patently stupid. Nobody but an idiot believes that the towers took 10 seconds to fall. Perhaps you are an idiot, but I am not.
Look at this simple video, it falsifies your idiotic claim.
Show me where in the 9/11 commission report it says the towers fell in 10 seconds. I call bullshit. Show me a quote or get lost and stop posting this crap.
watch?v=MAYXdafNl6E
ps I made the video to expose the lies of people like you.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower" Quote from 9/11 commission report.
@notSiD Fine, you've found the quote. Where did the figure come from?
The Commission Report was not a scientific report, so where did they obtain this data?
It was published in 2004
The only major engineering report done by NIST was not published until 2005. It does not agree with the 9/11 Commission report figure.
In fact, NIST states that seismic spikes 'began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds'
@notSiD The seismic spikes were ' the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground.' Much of this debris fell from a height of 80 stories or so, and the seismic record shows it continued to fall for another 15 seconds. The total elapsed time is about 25 seconds, shown by empirical data.
This is nowhere close to the 10 second myth. The 9/11 Commission figure is superseded by the scientifically accurate NIST report which followed it. It is wrong. Period.
'NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated..'
@notSiD Continued - most truthers misread that statement as a measure of total collapse time. It is obviously not.
It simply calibrates the time from collapse initiation until the impact of the first major debris on the ground below - approx 9 to 10 seconds just for that portion.
To that you must then add the rest of the collapse which followed. As in my video, clearly it is >15 seconds.
@AlienEntity1 And it doesn't urk you that the 9/11 commission report didn't even bother looking into the ACTUAL collapse time? If your banging my whole argument off this one piece of evidence, then what say you about the entire report?
@notSiD It really pisses me off that people like you rely on outright false statements to make your points.
1) It's absolutely false that the towers collapsed in 10 seconds. It doesn't matter if George Bush said so, or Mother Teresa or any other non-scientific entity which doesn't provide documentation to support the claim.
The FACT is that seismic records, carefully corroborated with video footage show that the actual times were more like 14 seconds.
@AlienEntity1 And I said 13 seconds, you're saying 14 seconds, we can argue about the exact moment all we want, it doesn't make a bit of difference to my point. And that is, top down collapses are much slower, and don't have a constant acceleration. Which the towers did, up until when the core columns are visible. Discrediting engineers and architects based on investigation done by groups which serve special interest is demeaning to everything our country stands for.
@notSiD Don't lie. You wrote 'All three 9/11 buildings fell at near free fall speed'.
64% of freefall is NOT near freefall. That is a gross distortion of fact.
Sure, if it were 90%, you might have a point. But that's not the way it was, so you don't have a point. Stop trying to make the non-point with incorrect claims.
You have zero respect for the professional engineers who spent years studying the collapses and published their findings. Look in the mirror.
@notSiD Engineering schools around the world accept the NIST findings as accurate; not a single peer-reviewed engineering paper has been published in an engineering journal which disputes the NIST findings in any significant way, and certainly not a single 9/11 Truther has done that.
So you can throw the word 'engineer' around as if it means something, but it's smoke and mirrors, nothing more. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? M.I.A. - they don't exist.
@notSiD YOu are simply not going to be able to handwave away the 10,000 page NIST report by a glib claim that top-down collapses don't have constant acceleration.
That's just a horrendous insult to the professional engineers who painstakingly worked to understand the complexity and published all the data with full peer review.
You should stick to things you understand instead of appointing yourself as an expert and perpetuating false information. What a disgrace.
@AlienEntity1 WOah! that wasn't my intention at all. I simply want to help the movement by possibly providing another piece of evidence. The evidence that supports the demolition theory is based in science and uses facts to back up all it's claims. You where using it for the latter, but if it in fact was a demolition than the differences should be visible. NIST papers are reviewed by people under their umbrella, where is open peer review?
@notSiD Your comment is a word salad and makes no sense. There is no peer-reviewed engineering study which supports the controlled demolition theory. It doesn't exist. Check the journal of the ASCE, check the fire-science papers and journals.
What you claim simply does not exist.
Then you have the temerity to handwave the professional peer-review of the NIST scientists as if it didn't exist. But you are of course very wrong.
You've now invented a term - 'open peer review'. Word salad
@AlienEntity1 *sigh* I can only say this, if you think the peer-review process is not corruptible than you need to do some more research. No group of engineers is going to bother reviewing a 10,000 page report outside of the group that made it, and in fact, hasn't. To the contrary, an entire group has been formed to counter their claims, and is an open peer-review able by anybody in the field. No one has come out to counter claim them either, so both should be held under the same light.
@notSiD You are busy making weak excuses for the fact that 9/11 Truthers have done NO peer-reviewed engineering papers, no peer-reviewed fire science papers, not a single legitimately vetted study which demonstrates using either physics or physical evidence.
You shouldn't attack the real peer review when you can offer none for your arguments. That is laughable.
Oh, and the peer-review process is not perfect. In fact in the case of the infamous 'Active thermitic' paperthe process failed
@notSiD But the problem is you have zero evidence of lack of peer review for the papers supporting the plane/fire hypothesis, yet we have ample evidence of lack of peer review for the only truther paper to be published in a quasi-professional publication.
Oh dear, it looks like you've pawned yourself. Must hurt to be wrong so much of the time.....
@notSiD Your basic (and very faulty) position is that:
a) Truther claims do not need peer review, they are valid because they have been made by truthers (such as David Chandler and his idiotic nanothermite rockets)
b) All peer review of scientific papers supporting the plane impact/fire hypothesis is invalid because it does not agree with your political agenda and cult beliefs.
You reject all normal scientific channels, yet claim to respect science. Really, really dumb.
@notSiD We can form 100 lobby groups to try to prove that the universe is only 10,000 years old, that doesn't make any difference to the truth or the facts.
Without the validation of the scientific community, such claims are nothing but pseudo-scientific crap. They deserve derision and humiliation.
You are also lying in the extreme to say that 'no one has come out to counter claim them'. That is just a blatant lie. It is transparent bullshit.
@notSiD David Chandler himself used physics toolkit to show that WTC 1 fell at approximately 64% of freefall for the portion that was visible on the video he analyzed.
It doesn't matter what you think. the only thing that matters is the truth, and the truth is different from your claim. That is a problem for you.
You are arguing against reality, so you will fail every time. Only by avoiding facts can you keep up your charade. But you're still wrong, so it doesn't matter.
@notSiD David Chandler himself used physics toolkit to show that WTC 1 fell at approximately 64% of freefall for the portion that was visible on the video he analyzed.
It doesn't matter what you think. the only thing that matters is the truth, and the truth is different from your claim. That is a problem for you.
You are arguing against reality, so you will fail every time. Only by avoiding facts can you keep up your charade. But you're still wrong, so it doesn't matter.
@AlienEntity1 "LOL, the only similarity between the WTC collapses and controlled demolitions is that the buildings fell down somehow. That's where it ends."
I've shown compiled footage (e.g. watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg) to about a dozen friends and family members with no setup other than "tell me what you think about this video". Every single one has responded with something akin to "it's a demolition, so what?"
1. This is a masonry building. Masonry is brittle, and will shatter and crumble when stressed. Steel, which the 3 towers were made of, is ductile and slowly deforms under stress, especially when heated.
2. See how they have to break it in the middle? That's because the destruction occurs equally on both pieces at the point of impact because they're made of the same material, but this makes sense intuitively.
Verinage would not work on a steel framed building, nor on one not cut in the middle.
@AlienEntity1 "And your expertise on demolition is????? (silence)"
An engineering degree from a school consistently ranked in U.S. News and World Report's top 10 undergrad engineering schools, with plenty of relevant coursework in mechanical, civil, and materials engineering courses. How about you?
And by the way, if you say that only someone schooled and/or experienced specifically in demolitions is qualified to comment, then you need to throw out the vast majority of the NIST report.
@OneAmatoryScam I think it's fair to say that a person who is trained in and experienced in demolitions is more qualified to comment on demolitions, yes!!
On designing buildings, no! But on blowing them up, certainly. What else would you think? That people who DO NOT have training in these areas are somehow nevertheless qualified....by the mere fact that they have attended graduate school in something else??
@OneAmatoryScam You should note that, when the NIST embarked upon an investigation into the possibility of demolition explosives being employed, they relied on qualified experts in that particular field. What else would you have had them do??
They recognized the need for these qualifications and set about to consult with those experts. Unlike 9/11 Truthers, who seem to think that an opinion is all they need to 'prove' something scientific. Nothing could be further from the truth
@AlienEntity1 No, they did not consult demolitions experts re bldg 7. They decided they didn't need to, claiming nobody had reported sounds in excess of 140 decibels at some arbitrary distance from the building, which they posited was the minimum sound level required to justify exploring this possibility.
This is ridiculous. If slower-burning, advanced explosive-incendiaries that they had no detailed documentation on were used, they would have no way of estimating the relevant sound levels.
@Noahshollow Well, looks are all relative anyway. WTC 7 fell across at least 2 streets and did over $1 billion dollars damage to the buildings around it.
Obviously the towers did an enormous amount of damage to other buildings as well.
Controlled? Not by any normal standard of measurement, they aren't.
@AlienEntity1 Do you think there is no harm to other buidlings at a controlled demolition at all?
It´s everytime a question about money. Whether it´s worth the money or not. Luckily there wasn´t that question on 9/11 cause the "Terrorists" attacked.
@Noahshollow LOL, the only similarity between the WTC collapses and controlled demolitions is that the buildings fell down somehow. That's where it ends.
The list of differences is vast and overwhelms the similarities by a wide margin. Yes, the immense damage to the entire WTC complex by the towers would be one gigantic difference, but there are many others.
Truthers attempt to argue that WTC 7 is a CD because it fell 'neatly' into its own footprint. However, reality shows that it wasn't neat
@AlienEntity1 Wow, if the big difference you have is that they didn't fall neatly into their footprint, then you need to look closely. Cutter charges are visible, the buildings fall at near free-fall speed. The amount of energy generated by the fall, compared to top down collapses. The molten steel found underneath the rubble. Columns slashed at 45 degree angles at ground zero. I want to hear these differences your talking about.
1) There are NO cutter charges visible. That is fantasy on your part.
2) They DID NOT FALL at near freefall, far from it. More nonsense from you.
3) There is no empirical evidence of molten steel. Please try to find some or desist making ridiculous claims. You cannot identify the composition of molten metal by a cursory look - you must do careful measurements. This was never done.
4) The cut column claim has been debunked years ago. Do some research.
@AlienEntity1 1. Oh you buy the poofs of smoke explanation which states the cause as pressure buildup from the falling mass above? HAHA
2. Are you suggesting the towers didn't fall between 10-13 seconds? Or are you saying that free fall speed is more like 9-8 seconds. I saw the same videos you did. And I see the debris beating the tower, but not by much. Comparing it to these top-down collapses is still revealing, because they are still so much slower.
@notSiD You've just listed a bunch of old, tired canards, mainly nonsense.
You might want to ask yourself why, in actual controlled demolitions, buildings DON'T fall at freefall speed.
You might ask WHY there is no molten steel at controlled demolitions.
Your own claims are internally inconsistent and illogical. They are nothing but a litany of false premises and outright disinformation. That is all you have to support your crazy conspiracy-driven agenda.
@AlienEntity1 Hehe, Assuming I haven't already done this already.
To answer your questions: The reason is because they explode the columns with something like C4, not thermate, which melts it away. And controlled demolition still falls a lot closer to free fall then top down collapses.
Look up the Great Thermate Debate, 9/11 blueprint for truth. that should get you started. To prove me wrong is to prove them wrong. i'm not saying believe me, GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF, That is all I ask.
@Noahshollow Sorry, continued, wasn't so neat as claimed, as it did a huge amount of damage to both the Verizon bldg and Fiterman hall. The damage was so profound that in the case of the Verizon building they ' replaced 1,800 windows, 520,000 exterior bricks on the south wall and 22,500 cinder blocks on the building'. Cost, $1.4 billion. Fiterman hall had to be demolished later as it was irreparable - cost $325 million.
1) It doesn't matter what material is used, all columns have a maximum strength and will fail if it is exceeded
2) verinage does not require a 50/50 split. It can be done 30/70. The salient part is the mass of the upper portion must be sufficient. In a very tall building this mass can be reached with a smaller percentage of the total floors, obviously
3) a 'jolt' will only occur with very clean impacts and symmetry. This did not happen with the towers. Hence no 'jolt'
@AlienEntity1 1) Wrong, Steel framed buildings behave differently (can handle a much heavier load) from masonry buildings. You have an example of a steel framed building using the Verinage technique?
2) Again, do you have an example of a steel framed building behaving this way?
3) A "jolt" (momentary deceleration) MUST occur when 2 objects collide. There is no way around that.; It's the hard physics. Glad you agree there was no "jolt".
Steel columns have a max strength. Exceed it and they buckle.
Concrete or masonry is very strong but different in quality. You simply are ignorant of structural engineering, that's all.
In fact a masonry building is far more resistant to fire than a steelframe one. Oops! Guess you truthers forgot that! LOL
3) If I throw a brick thru a window there isn't much 'jolt'. It depends on the resistance encountered. Large mass hits a bolt or flange, the jolt is small.
Again, real structural engineers, in fact America's top engineers, have looked at the collapses and explained the events. Truthers refuse these rational, competent explanations since they contradict truther's religious belief in CD.
Oh well. Truthers are wrong.
btw, there are changes in instantaneous acceleration in the tower collapses, while measurements are not able to be too fine due to video limitations. There is evidence of impact for sure, but not giant jolts.
@Kill0Your0TV Besides, you're side-stepping and ignoring the fact that the tower collapses were highly asymmetrical (there was tilting on initiation) and involved weakened steel structure at point of failure. Also that the impacts of structure were very complex, not neat and tidy like the verinage controlled demolitions.
These were not controlled demolitions. Clearly. There's zero evidence that they were.
btw, there's no evidence of cutter charges on the columns. Failures were examined!
@AlienEntity1 LOL. In denial much? Yes, the hundreds of witnesses hearing/witnessing explosions, the melted steel, the hard physics, yes it's all nonsense. Keep protecting the war-mongering criminals.
@Kill0Your0TV Yes, I deny that the sound of an explosion necessarily indicates high explosive cutter charges. There's no empirical evidence to support that claim.
Here's a video exploring eyewitness reports of 'explosions' watch?v=dizurbqG50U
There is no empirical evidence of melted steel, sorry. The only thing you have is some anecdotal reports, but no metallurgical testing, and the reports were not from metal experts either.
There was indeed molten metal - probably Al, Tin, Lead, Copper
@Kill0Your0TV And you're introducing a red herring - the physics and empirical evidence have NOTHING to do with the behavior of the US government in foreign wars etc... Those are not the same issues. I do not agree with the warmongering of US leaders, but I also do not agree that the WTC were destroyed by controlled demolition.
There is no real evidence to support these truther claims. Allegations and suspicion are not enough.
It's the controlled demolition. You have to intelligently remove one floor - all structural columns and walls - at one moment. The floor in the middle.
@kokpit That's the 'perfect, ideal' collapse. However, collapse which is not perfect and ideal can also happen. For example the University of Delft in 2008 - reinforced concrete building, one tower collapsed leaving only the stairwell area.
It's caught on video. The WTC tower collapses were NOT neat and tidy, they were asymmetric and chaotic. Yet conspiracy theorists insist this was some kind of CD....??
Also, not steel-framed building, no concrete core, no melted steel, no vaporized steel ejections, no thermite samples, no violent ejections of steel or debris...how much more do I need to go on? Also, please DON'T watch this video: /watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8 No near free-fall speed, already said massive deceleration. Explosives ejections not going out on each floor w/ corner intact. Also DON'T watch the original: /watch?v=smreRx51cus&feature=related PLEASE don't watch the actual collapse.
@NothingAtAllXD Please don't read FDNY statements that WTC 7 was expected to collapse, that it was leaning, that it was fully involved.
That would spoil your malicious revisionist twisting of facts and history, and we don't want that, do we? We don't want to face facts and evidence, do you truthers - you'd rather recite your fantasies like trained parrots.
Talk about sheep. The way you're bleating, I'd say the wool was pulled well over your eyes. Wake up!
@AlienEntity1 Red Herring Alert, but hey, if you want to go ahead and divert it to Building 7, when B-L-A-T-A-N-T-L-Y I was talking about the Twin Towers in my previous posts, go ahead! Also, thanks for addressing my other contentions and arguments, a Straw Man sure disproves all other key evidence of a CD! :) But, I will address all of your arguments and easily refute them. First off, Building 7 Reports of "leaning" have nothing to do with the Twin Towers, so no explanation there...
@AlienEntity1 This link is what you need to read on about the witnessing statements of the Building 7 reports of collapse by the FDNY. journalof911studies(dot)com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven(dot)pdf There is several things wrong here, 1st of Lets induce some Selective Amnesia and forget that the Actual collapse of Building 7 was a full-blown bottom-up demolition w/ symmetry, detonations, explosions and rate of collapse!
@NothingAtAllXD Nope. Case studies of actual controlled demolitions show that the situation of WTC 7 was clearly not CD.
Real CD's do not fall at the rate of freefall, yet truthers constantly bleat that freefall is the special indicator. They need to do more research.
And no explosive controlled demolition happens without loud explosions at the time of collapse. That didn't happen with WTC 7, so it rules out explosives. Reality just doesn't work the way truthers want it too.
@AlienEntity1 The reports from the FDNY were nothing more than statements about partial collapse made by two to three of the Chiefs which did spread on to the entire group as they were told what were to happened...they did not expect what actually happened and were quite stunned. Also, they had been on the scene of the WTC Twin Tower's collapse and saw what minimal fires had done and were only thinking the worst of WTC 7, baffled from a clear Top-Down Demolition that defied many laws of Physics.
@NothingAtAllXD Apart from FDNY there is zero evidence of any cutter charges on a single piece of steel recovered and examined at Freshkills by forensic teams. A number of highly qualified demolition experts were at GZ almost immediately after 9/11 with teams, yet they observed no evidence of CD either.
The only failure modes seen on steel were consistent with fire-induced gravitational collapse.
One thing you wrote sets of alarm bells, the 'defied the laws of physics' canard. Facepalm...
@NothingAtAllXD As soon as a truther uses the talking point 'defied laws of physics' you know they don't understand physics and are merely reciting a talking point.
I'm sorry, but if you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community (engineering community) you have to at least know what you're talking about. Reading from a script doesn't work with educated people.
That method failed about 5 years ago and 9/11 truth is dying out partly for that reason - inability to adapt to reality.
@AlienEntity1 Also, radio-in'd reports told them that a collapse was imminent, as there is video evidence of workers with radios saying the "Buildings were going to blow!" And there are witnesses who overheard countdowns done by these people and the BBC reported 20 minutes before the actual collapse that it had collapsed! :) The rest believed so, confused, baffled from what they were hearing and quickly contracted mindless group-think like you, me and the rest of the population.
@NothingAtAllXD You are referring to one witness who claimed to hear a countdown. What's interesting is that his story became embellished. The first time he told it (on camera) he said he couldn't hear what was said, but it was short phrases.
Later, he claimed it was a countdown.
So a gullible (and sneaky) person like you will automatically believe his word.....while ignoring all others against it... not a smart move on your part.
BBC report? So now you're in the 'no mistake' camp? LOL
@NothingAtAllXD BBC continued - so you're one of those people who can't understand that news organizations make mistakes every day, and have to issue corrections.
EVERY DAY, 365 days a year.
Yet when a mistake is made on 9/11, the paranoia-addled mind (yours, apparently) wrongly attributes this to some nefarious MSM plot. There is zero logic to this. Your idea requires the network reporters and their bosses to be 'in' on the scam, meaning they are all in collusion. Oy vey! That's a conspiracy!!
@NothingAtAllXD So your enormous 'they are in on it' conspiracy theory hinges around a mistake made by one reporter..... Hmmm, again, not logical, not very intelligent.
Earlier, it was reported a Cessna flew into WTC 1, not a 767. According to your logic, this was also part of the plot...or was it a mistake? Did the NWO order the news channel to report it as a Cessna for some particular reason that you can think of?
There was also a false report of a van with a bomb. Part of the conspiracy too?
@AlienEntity1 So, that parody of "Please don't read" is not comparable to my witness statements because the witnesses in this situation claimed that they were making predictions that the building was going to partially or gradually collapse from fires whereas the witnesses in the previous situation were reporting internal explosions and heard detonators going off as the building collapsed! There's a clear distinction than seeing nothing out of the blue for a building...
@AlienEntity1 ...that just received a few hundred tons of flaming, smoking debris from the North Tower and caught on fire! They were making hasty generalization fallacies and predicting from insufficient information, deluded and had clogged interpretation. But, hearing multiple, consecutive explosions going off cannot be a prediction/fallacy, it is an observation made and nothing more. And leaning does not support the actual collapse model because the building didn't have a partial/very ...
@AlienEntity1 Gradual collapse. So next, no it wouldn't spoil as I have shown. Predictions made in the heat of the day mean nothing more than misinterpreted hypothesis that were not made from a truly rational mind , many have been planted just as they have written up in Northwoods to fabricate evidence and fool everyone just as we saw in the BBC Anomaly, which they claim they never did. And you don't want to face the facts and evidence clearly, you just go on a quote mining field trip!
@NothingAtAllXD No, I'm just not a gullible twit who can't separate fiction from reality. I'm a skeptic,not a believer.
I'm not one of the chosen 'flock' of truthers who hold a secret insight into every aspect of 9/11 which allows them to peer into a conspiracy that never existed. Truthers like you understand engineering better than any trained engineer; you know more about demolition than actual demolition experts.
I guess nobody needs to go to university anymore, just watch youtube videos...
@AlienEntity1 I will rebut all of these when I find time and do some more research... but this I had to comment on. You are no "Skeptic." If you were a skeptic, you would be asking for a new investigation, but of course your Cognitive Dissonance issue keeps you from thinking that because you associate that with being a twoofer. It's just like the goons on JREF who say that they are all skeptics, when in reality they are holding double standards because they aren't even skeptical of the original
@AlienEntity1 Conspiracy Theory. Forget all of the experts on AE911truth, but wait, go ahead and spread your copy and pasted Ad Hominem from your Debunking Hubs. You are holding double standards thinking that passports, credit cards, and other ID can jump out of someone's pocket, open the cabin door and escape the fireball just in time while the Black Boxes in the same trajectory with more mass and inertia fail to survive. You are holding double standards thinking that a Red Bandana from Flight
@AlienEntity1 93 can survive unsinged without any dirt while the entire plane literally disintegrates and then all of the people can survive. You are holding double standards to ignore all of the drills and war games that they were doing all the way up to 9/11 involving 9/11 scenarios that contradicted Rice and Bush. You are holding double standards to ignore all of the Extensive history of False Flags that the United States has been involved in including Operation Ajax, Gladio and Northwoods
@AlienEntity1 The Bay of Tonkin False Flag which got us into Vietnam and killed 50,000 American Soldiers. The USS Liberty False Flag. The Pearl Harbor Ignored Warnings by FDR. MKULTRA. Iran-Contra. CIA Drug Ops. You seem to ignore all of those. Ignore our complicity with the Taliban for removal of Soviets out of Northern Afghanistan. Ignore the Pentagon's AA Defense Measures. Ignore J. Michael Springmann who was forced by the CIA to give out visas to these men.
@AlienEntity1 Ignore the multiple money wiring from the gov't to these individuals. Ignore that they weren't devout Muslims, they were incessantly sinning for years, not the fallacious claim that they did it months before. Forget that the Alqaeda has links to the CIA. Forget Anwar Al-Awlaki who recruited Honi Honjour, Nidal Hassan, Time Square Attempted Bomber, Richard Reid the shoebomber, and the Christmas Day Bomber who ate at the Pentagon a week after the attacks and wasn't killed until
@AlienEntity1 killed until recently, just like Bin Laden which can taunt our most sophisticated of satellites across the world releasing video after video. If that doesn't seem like a joke to you, then something is DAMN wrong with your brain. Forget Bin Laden's ties to the CIA, forget the multiple chances and warnings the federal gov't received about the impeding threat of the hijackers. Forget no air-response, oh wait they were running war games, forget no helicopter rescue oh wait Tripod 2.
@AlienEntity1 Bow down to NIST, they're models are highly accurate, just like the Building 7 CGI model which was insanely accurate and a replicate of the actual collapse. Don't be skeptical that they refuse to release the parameters and that they falsified column destruction and contorted the measurements under the FOIA. Don't be skeptical about their fallacious explanations for the Twin Towers which you seem to avoid and divert the attention away from.
@AlienEntity1 Also DON'T be suspicious that NIST is a government agency and the burden of proof, especially when the government has committed real conspiracies in the past and killed thousands of innocent people as a result, which of course lies in the government having its own agencies help prove its innocence. Don't read Cass Sustein's paper on Cognitive Infiltration and how he accepts how PM and NIST had govern't connections designed to rebut these theories that are supposedly
@AlienEntity1 3rd Party groups giving genuine opinions and facts. Also ignore in the Cognitive Infiltration paper how Cass talked about infiltrating online groups and chat rooms and posting disinfo websites to break these groups up. Please don't be skeptical about any of your debunking Hubs. Also, don't be skeptical about having no trial for Osama Bin Laden and his amazing gang of people who can gain NORAD's itineraries from SCIFs but forget that Bush is in Booker Elementary school or that
@AlienEntity1 And forget that Rumsfield's office is the other side of the Pentagon! LOL! Don't be skeptical that Bush stayed at the school after the warnings of the hijackings, because the Secret Service know for a fact that he isn't in danger and of course NORAD's doughnut effect temporarily suspends to tell them that they aren't in the terrorist's range. And of course don't be skeptical about that. And even more, don't be skeptical about the huge motives of the federal gov't.
@AlienEntity1 How PNAC and Dick Cheney all called for terror attacks so that they could recieve massive funding for the Military-Industrial Complex. And the trillions in war debt, the trillions in opium trade, the billions in oil, forget about no trial for anyone, forget that the FBI can't link OBL to 9/11. Forget that they have changed the story 10,000 times. Don't be suspicious, but be skeptical about people who ask questions, they're damned lunatics who are Conspiracy Theorists and you're not
@NothingAtAllXD I just read a couple more of your posts and I've concluded you have some kind of thinking disorder. You are rationalizing away everything that undermines your fixed belief, yet you don't pause to consider that you might be incorrect.
That's where you've gone off the rails and down the rabbit hole. Oh well, not many people give a crap what nutbars think anyway, so you can rail on about this stuff until you're blue in the face. It won't change reality.
Love the MASSIVE deceleration about 9 Seconds to demolish approximately 20 stories, asymmetrical slopping of fully intact debris, and only one set of the "ejections" going off @0:29. LOL, @ 0:31 Bedunkers getting orgasms saying "SQUIBS" until 0:34's water droplets! :) No huge floating pyroclastic flow, no flashes, no loud booming and no witnesses saying "Detonators." Also, building is pulled HALFWAY DOWN, as you can see that part was already pre-configured for this demolition technique.
@AlienEntity1 No I don't. I heavily rebut the "No-planes" Theories. 1). There WAS pyroclastic flow. Did you not see the huge surge running over the NJ River? Read this: earthinstitute(dot)columbia(dot)edu/news/story11_16_01.html scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage all were cited for referencing the clouds to Pyroclastic Flow. Now a volcanic pyroclastic flow, that's VERY different but this one was for sure because of it fluid motion TOWARDS the opposite direction of gravita...
@AlienEntity1 tational force, it was rising up in the air clearly in massive quantities. They must have been super-heated gases to be able to achieve this momentum, force and inertia that it did. Obviously! The thickness and definition of the cloud also gave it away that some sort of exotic weapon system with the combination of mast plastic explosives and super heating incendiaries to create such dense, and quickly rising set of gases. But if you want to talk volcanic connotation and get...
@AlienEntity1 Bedunker's Technicality Double Standard Syndrome, then you will try to point out that there is no significance in these clouds which were composed of a great portion of the previously fully intact structural steel, drywall and concrete reduced to a gaseous cloud erupting throughout the streets, then go ahead and Straw Man! If you prove my use of the word that describes the evidence wrong, then you prove the observations wrong! YEAH!
Respond to this video... 2). Please watch this video entirely and educate yourself on the credible experts who are qualified to speak all coming out: /watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ! Yes, there are 2 demolition experts in this video: A). Tom Sullivan, an explosions technician @ CDI B). Steve Luce- a former 12 Bravo combat engineer in the U.S. Army trained. He trained extensively for 4 years in the use of plastic, liquid, and powder explosives. Many more experts although I don't have time to name them.
@AlienEntity1 3). Melted Steel Reports all seen w/ video footage and witness testimony. Not Pb or Al, because they are opposite color at that temp. and cannot mix w/ office materials. Empirically proven that. Just do some searches. 4). Did you not see the smoking steel from the collapse? Forming vapors on it and the North Tower leaning back into itself and disintegrating and vaporizing during the collapse? How deluded can you be? 5). /watch?v=i6q19bL_n9I Watch that video w/ a qualified expert.
@AlienEntity1 Here's another video: /watch?v=1ger0lTKnis Watch that too! /watch?v=4RNyaoYR3y0 And this! But the Explosive Evidence Documentary is really the best explaining how they are arranged under a microscope, theoretically impossible from any natural formation due to the redundant pattern showing military-grade fabrication. But of course you like to ignore the fact that this demolition and the WTC Twin Tower demolition were VERY distinct. I'll talk to you this weekend if I get a chance ...
@AlienEntity1 To actually cite all of the stuff I want to, I'm providing minimal allusions and references right now as I am very busy but trying to give you a quick response.
@alienEntity1, I have a test for you to do. Buy a model airplane drive a stake in the ground. Then fly the right wing of the model plane into the stake then tell me it doesn't turn to the right. When the wings of the airplane hit the light poles the plane could not have made it to the pentagon and cause all the damage they said happened. That is a fact of physics. I told you I worked with airplanes and know that this is a fact. If a plane hit the pentagon why is there not an outline of a plane.
@jimsanders1 Good god man. The physics of large objects do not directly scale to small objects.
That's why a flea can jump many times its own height, but an elephant cannot. You need to slow down and start thinking straight. I explained to you that anFEA was done on both the towers and pentagon by purdue university.
What part of that do you not understand? Finite Element Modeling is the standard for computer design and testing in the 21st century. Most cars and planes are designed that way.
@jimsanders1 Yeah, and you'd probably start arguing that the plane should've bounced off the pentagon, because a model airplane would bounce off reinforced concrete. I've heard this nonsense before many times - and it's still wrong.
@AlienEntity1, I promise you that if I were to put all the evidence from 9-11 into tracks that a rabbit leaves behind it when it is in the snow. That I could track and kill every rabbit I see with a 22 long rifle gun without missing a shot. That is a fact!!! I believe you must have stockholm syndrome, because you see the evidence, but still run back to your abuser the government. I bet you think that Obama was born in Hawaii. You still think that Obama's birth certificate is real and not fake!
@AlienEntity1, You can't change the fact that Larry said what I told you he said on PBS America Rebuilds. I was talking about adding things up on 9-11. I do know about airplanes I worked with them. One day I saved more than 80 people from dying. I know that if a plane hits a metal pole at 300 to 500 MPH with its right wing the plane will turn to the right. That is not my opinion it's a fact of science. If you haven't worked with airplanes then go research what happens if a wing hits a metal pole
@jimsanders1 I hate arguing with idiots. What you've just stated is not a fact of science, it's the opinion of a fool.
I already gave you a reference to the FEA study done by Purdue. Before you continue to dig deeper into the rabbit hole, look at the study. You clearly do not understand either momentum or the physics of impacts.
If you can offer scientific proof (as the FEA does) to support your opinion please do so now or STFU.
@AlienEntity1, If you add it all up there is more to the story then what they tell us. The Truth always comes out in what people say. When Larry said what he said it points to they had the WTC 7 ready to collapse when ever the wanted it to collapes. Why hide all the video of the plane hitting the pentagon if someone else did it? If the plane was flying at more than 300mph and the right wing hits a metal pole the plane will spin to the right not just knock the pole over. It's all fishy!
@jimsanders1 No, you're reading into the comments of Silverstein things he didn't say. You have no business claiming these speculations as a reflection of reality. They aren't. You are continuing to ignore the fact that Chief Nigro specifically address the point.
Why do you ignore evidence?
Then you start spouting off about the Pentagon. Well, you've failed to produce evidence for your first point (you misquoted Silverstein, remember?), then you move onto the next myth? Forget it.
@jimsanders1 Your attempt to misdirect the discussion onto another subject (which you completely misunderstand as well) is not going to fly! Sorry.
btw, Purdue university did a FEA analysis which proves you wrong. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Get knowledge, and stop believing these stupid urban legends.
@AlienEntity1, I just watched the PBS video, and heard Larry say from his own mouth. "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. Then they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." To get WTC 7 to collapse explosives had to be already in place. It means they knew ahead of time.
@jimsanders1 You've morphed Jim. You first said Larry said 'just pull the building'. Well, guess what? You were wrong, he never said pull the building. In fact, nobody recorded the conversation so we're basing this discussion on what Larry recollected 4 years later for chrissake! Get real.
Show me where Larry and Chief Nigro say that explosives were in place to demolish the building. Oh, you can't, because NOBODY BUT TRUTHERS EVER SAYS THIS!!!!!! NOBODY.
@jimsanders1 You're missing the part where Chief Nigro says ''A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.'
RU mentally deficient? Can you not read? WTF is preventing you from understanding the words of the FDNY Chief??????
He said 'PULL BACK THE FIREFIGHTERS', not 'light the demolition explosives'. Gawd...
@jimsanders1 You're missing the part where Chief Nigro says ''A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.'
RU mentally deficient? Can you not read? WTF is preventing you from understanding the words of the FDNY Chief??????
He said 'PULL BACK THE FIREFIGHTERS', not 'light the demolition explosives'. Gawd...
@alienenetity, Larry said we had such loss of life and to pull it, then we watched WTC 7 collapse. He said this on a PBS show called America rebuilds.
@jimsanders1 Yeah, we all know about this. He was talking to FDNY about their men being in jeopardy. Do you need the quote? I guess you will keep your head in the sand until you read it....
'A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.' FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro
@jimsanders1 Nope, that's not what he said. You remember incorrectly. I could quote it for you, but I'm so bored with this myth that I'm not going to bother.
You're wrong, get your facts straight.
ps he was talking to an FDNY chief, and the chief later wrote that he pulled his men from the area around WTC 7. I can quote that for you too, but you can take my word for it. I am right.
The owner of the WTC 7 said we have had such loss of life just pull it and then we watched building 7 fall. How could they pull the building if they didn't already know it had explosives in it ready to bring it down. Things add up!!! If you were to add up everything, and it was like bread crums I would have already found and killed the mouse 100,000,000 times.
@jimsanders1 Yes, Larry Silverstein recalled his conversation - not with a demolition team but with one of the FDNY chiefs! FDNY were not doing demolition on 9/11, they were trying to rescue people and protect them.
FDNY Chief Nigro 'A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.'
Tell me how you get for the first time in history that a steal building falls 3 steal buildings fall and all buildings owned by the same man. If a passport is in an airplane how does it not get burned up when the plane explodes into fire and burns all around it? Things don't add up. Why won't they release the video of the plane hitting the pentagon? If what they claim happened the video would prove it. They lied so they can't show the video.
@alienentity1, This building also had main corner supprot removed along with other support removed. WTC 7 didn't have all the work done to it that this building had done to it to bring it down. There was hundreds of hours in this building to bring it down. It is said that WTC 7 fell because of fire. Before any building fell Jennings said bombs were going off in WTC 7, and one bomb blew him up into the air. This was before any building fell. If this was outside than why keep secretes from us!!
The first gives you a conclusive answer very quickly and simply. The second relies on the accuracy of the various assumptions and the sound level prediction methodology.
This is a no-brainer. The only reason you would use the second method instead of the first is if you knew what result the first would produce, and you didn't want to have to publish that result. And that, of course, is the option they chose.
This isn't terribly complicated...
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam A cheap strawman argument which is based on false premises. So of course it fits your agenda - surprise surprise.
However, you made a false statement initially. I'll repost your lie 'they did not consult demolitions experts re bldg 7.'
This is blatantly false. You are now, instead of acting like an honest adult, trying to obfuscate about melted steel.
However, there was no melted steel found. The eutectic erosion samples WERE studied by experts.... hmmmm
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam If you read the FEMA report, you will see that the only known examples of eutectic erosion (hot sulphur corrosion of steel) were in fact studied by qualified experts in the lab to determine the process.
But there never were any molten steel samples found. There were only anecdotal reports, but no confirmed examples. So no testing was done on something which did not occur - this is to be expected.
Only your fictional account differs.... from reality.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam I love your circular reasoning. No evidence, just circular arguments and an ignorance of NFPA 921 and the facts.
Sheesh! You couldn't possibly make a less competent argument. What a joke.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 BTW, if you were secure in your position, you wouldn't have felt the need to include some sort of ad hominem attack in every single post you've made in this entire exchange. I challenge you to abandon these completely from this point forward.
If your argument is sound, you can win attacking the argument alone and not the arguer.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
1. Test the steel and other items from the debris pile for residues of explosives and incendiaries (which, by the way, national fire code demands when there is evidence of melted steel).
2. Guess at which structural memebers would have to have been destroyed and how/where to initiate collapse, guess at which explosive compound would likely have been used, and estimate the sound level that would have been produced based on all of these assumptions.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam You have made yet another false statement. National Fire Code does not demand any such thing. Firstly, it is a recommendation in arson cases, not a requirement, and this was not an arson case - the cause of the fire was very clear and well understood: flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (North Tower).
There was no evidence to suggest explosives, fire code certainly does not require that type of testing. Accelerants are the usual suspects in arson cases.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam By your logic, no evidence can be used to support any conclusion, because all alternatives (no matter how insane) are equally valid.
You present no logical or scientific basis for your claims. NFPA 921 does not demand or recommend testing for thermite in the circumstances of the collapse of WTC 7, it was interpreted and followed correctly by competent professionals.
Sure, the loony-tune brigade are screaming..... that's what they do. The arguments are invalid.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam Accelerants are looked for in arson cases, not explosives. But this was not an arson case, and any argument which suggests it was is a fallacious argument - the evidence is clearly against this idea.
But of course people like you think you are experts in everything, so you ignore the actual trained people and their judgements. You have zero respect for actual expertise, as it's very inconvenient to your mythology. ;)
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 "... any argument which suggests it was is a fallacious argument ..."
Do you even realize what you're doing here? You're saying any argument that leads to conclusion x is false, presumably because you disagree with that conclusion, not because of the argument itself.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam Dude, look up the definition of a fallacious argument. That's exactly what the truther meme about NFPA 921 is doing - making the false assumption which then leads to a number of erroneous conclusions.
It is a fact that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the debris from WTC 1, the evidence is clear and irrefutable. Your whole premise (and Eric Lawyer's) is a bad joke.
Of course you don't see the falsity of it - that's your delusion.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam I challenge you to find:
a) the portion of the fire code pertaining to melted steel
b) empirical evidence (ie metallurgical tests by trained experts) of melted steel at the WTC.
Knock yourself out. Bring your evidence.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 I'll get to work giving you the specific sections of the fire code, though I would think with your constant instance that we defer to the experts on these matters that Lawyer's testimony would suffice.
As far as evidence of melted steel, a video recording that you, I, or any visitor of page can view for him or herself is worlds better than any third-party testimony, so there's nothing better I can give you there. If you have a problem with the video evidence, please explain it.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam Scam, there is simply NO empirical evidence of molten steel. Nada.
A youtube video is not going to get you there. You need a lab which can test the samples and give you a proper analysis.
That is not what you're presenting, so the burden of proof is not being met. Your evidence, in other words, simply does not support your arguments.
Hmmm, I didn't know Eric Lawyer was an expert in the investigation. What part did he play in it? He was on the team?
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam Look, you're completely missing the elephant in the room - that is, what caused the fires in the WTC buildings. There is no mystery, and any honest person should be able to agree to this; hence I don't think you're very honest, frankly.
Here's the thing: The flaming debris from the towers started massive fires in SEVERAL buildings, including WTC 4, 5 and 6!! RU suggesting that FDNY should've tested all those buildings for thermite???? Really?? That's insane...
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam What you're doing is basically ignoring what the purpose of the NFPA guideline is for - it is there to give guidance in fire investigations, and as such must be applied competently.
I challenge you, yes you, to address FDNY directly, in writing, and ask them why they made the decision NOT to test the WTC building debris for thermite. Get their answer and roll with it. You might learn something about the process.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam I've saved you the trouble, here it is: '19.2.4* Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.'
Again, there were no grounds (continued)
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam There were no grounds for FDNY to think that accelerants were used! The fires burned as normal office fires over many hours, without firefighting.
The failure modes of the steel were: thermal expansion and shear. None of the recovered steel, upon inspection, was melted - some of it was bent, but not melted.
There were a couple of examples of eutectic erosion of the steel, which is a sulphidation process, not linked with thermitics.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You seem to have become a master at name-calling. Critical thinking, not so much.
I'll clarify. In my book, "consulting demolitions experts" who then tell you that demolitions experts do not need to be consulted is, um, not consulting demolitions experts.
They had two options:
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam btw, your previous false statement - that demolitions experts were not consulted - is still false, and you still have not accepted that it is false.
RU always so stubbornly wrong in life? I hope not, life must be very tough for you otherwise.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
Comment removed
chachfallgatter 1 month ago
Comment removed
chachfallgatter 1 month ago
Comment removed
chachfallgatter 1 month ago
I'm glad that I have no real interest in 911. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be either a 'truther' or a 'debunker'. It's a circular argument; back and forth. I do find it funny though that debunkers accuse truthers of having a political agenda, yet can't admit that they too have their own political axe to grind. The real truth will never be found, I do know that the official theory has as many holes as any alternative one. Enjoy wasting your time while the world goes to hell!
MyGravyWeighsATon 1 month ago
@MyGravyWeighsATon I'm glad you're at least looking into arguments on either side of the issue, but I don't understand how one can have no interest in something so important. Regardless, I applaud your skepticism, and I implore you to continue to reserve judgement until you're satisfied with the evidence either side presents.
It's not a circular argument though. But the "debunkers" thrive on these; they rely on portions of the NIST report to argue their position that NIST's analysis is correct.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
Once again the building slows down instantly after it crushes the first floor, then continues to slow down, all the way to the bottom. The top part of the building meets the resistance of the building below that pushes against the acceleration of the free fall, causing it to decelerate. All three 9/11 buildings fell at near free fall speed, with no deceleration anywhere in between. Watch 9/11 blueprint for truth for a REAL in depth explanation. VOTE THUMBS UP IF YOU AGREE!
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD Wrong, wrong wrong. False.
The towers DID NOT FALL 'at near freefall speed' except in the minds of a cult of realty-warping conspiracists.
64% is not 'near' - it's actually FAR. Try graduating college with 64% and argue with your prof that it's 'nearly' 100% so you should be getting an A+!! LOL
You do not understand the subject, and you don't even care what is real and what isn't. Your political agenda to frame the Fed is transparent.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 Case and point. You have not done the proper research. I'm not going to spoon feed this stuff to you. All I care about is the truth. I have no reason to WANT my government to be a problem, what a terrible lie. Why can't you even consider the possibility? your false accusations and misinformation is a clear case of delusion based on trust. You won't even consider the possibility. That in itself is a dangerous notion.
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD Garbage. Pure garbage you're spewing. I showed the fallacious nature of your 'near freefall' canard, you can't accept the facts dude.
You can't twist reality to fit your agenda. That won't work. Your claims fail for that reason alone. Stop making them or show yourself to be dishonest or very foolish indeed.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 Call it garbage all you want, It's your first amendment right, but you have shown nothing about anything. At least I provide a direction you can use to follow my argument and check for yourself. There are plenty of sources for the collapse speed of the towers. Do you think any of your top-down collapse videos even come close to 200% free fall speed? or even 300%? I am the first to think to compare, as I haven't seen anyone else do it. But i'm curious to find out.
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD No, it's not my first amendment right dude. I don't live in America, so I don't require America's approval to make a truthful statement and expose your disinformation attempts.
You are going to have to ignore a mountain of empirical (yes, verifiable) seismic and video evidence which shows, very clearly, the towers did NOT collapse in 10 seconds.
You will do this because you cannot accept the truth, as it injures your bizarre conspiracy cult theories. So what - I don't care.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD Just by your last post it demonstrates that
a) You are evading the careful and accurate measurements done by physics toolkit, showing only 64% freefall, thus disproving any claims of 'near' freefall.
b) by introducing the hallucinated number of 200% or 300% (with no valid basis) you are attempting to shift the conversation away from the simple fact that your initial claim is garbage and wrong.
In fact real CD's do NOT collapse at freefall. I'll get some figures shortly.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD It's your prerogative to make false statements and claims, but that won't help you.
Here's a simple verifiable fact for you, which you don't know about since you're not a competent researcher:
'E Yarimer at London University (1990's)
Sandwell East building fell only about 40 meters in the first 4 seconds of bulk motion with an acceleration of no more than 5 m/s^2.'
A controlled demolition at 5 m/s2. Freefall is 9.8 m/s2. Oops, the facts show that your argument has zero merit.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD You are certainly NOT the first person to compare, and you are only now beginning to acquire some proper information (far too late, since you've already swallowed the truther koolaid) which you will now be forced to rationalize away - inconvenient truth?
Yeah, truther hero David Chandler got a nasty shock when he applied his measuring tools to real CD's and discovered 'they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall.' Ooops! LOL
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD Controlled demolition and acceleration. Contrary to 9/11 Truther mythology (as parroted by you) 'The entire process is driven by gravity but the downward velocities are attenuated by the energy absorption at the point of impact, and the motion will accelerate less than a case of free fall; it may even decelerate'
Factors Affecting the Numerical Modelling of Demolition by Explosives" In Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol 8 (1994)
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 Okay, but the fact that top-down collapses are much slower is still true, So I don't see how that contradicts anything. Obviously comparing them is something that must be done, and i'm talking about an actual comparison based in science.
notSiD 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 Oh and one last thing, the slowly falling dust cloud doesn't count as part of the towers collapse. I know that should go without saying, but I can see where the confusion lies form looking at the video. But really it's a moot point. even the 9/11 commission report said it took 10 seconds for it to fall. The exact time frame is hidden in smoke, but the fact that it was close to free fall speed is unavoidably true.
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD Again, absolute garbage from you. In fact it's patently stupid. Nobody but an idiot believes that the towers took 10 seconds to fall. Perhaps you are an idiot, but I am not.
Look at this simple video, it falsifies your idiotic claim.
Show me where in the 9/11 commission report it says the towers fell in 10 seconds. I call bullshit. Show me a quote or get lost and stop posting this crap.
watch?v=MAYXdafNl6E
ps I made the video to expose the lies of people like you.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
"From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower" Quote from 9/11 commission report.
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD Fine, you've found the quote. Where did the figure come from?
The Commission Report was not a scientific report, so where did they obtain this data?
It was published in 2004
The only major engineering report done by NIST was not published until 2005. It does not agree with the 9/11 Commission report figure.
In fact, NIST states that seismic spikes 'began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds'
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD The seismic spikes were ' the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground.' Much of this debris fell from a height of 80 stories or so, and the seismic record shows it continued to fall for another 15 seconds. The total elapsed time is about 25 seconds, shown by empirical data.
This is nowhere close to the 10 second myth. The 9/11 Commission figure is superseded by the scientifically accurate NIST report which followed it. It is wrong. Period.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD Methodology:
'NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated..'
Most truthers misread this statement
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD Continued - most truthers misread that statement as a measure of total collapse time. It is obviously not.
It simply calibrates the time from collapse initiation until the impact of the first major debris on the ground below - approx 9 to 10 seconds just for that portion.
To that you must then add the rest of the collapse which followed. As in my video, clearly it is >15 seconds.
watch?v=MAYXdafNl6E
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 And it doesn't urk you that the 9/11 commission report didn't even bother looking into the ACTUAL collapse time? If your banging my whole argument off this one piece of evidence, then what say you about the entire report?
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD It really pisses me off that people like you rely on outright false statements to make your points.
1) It's absolutely false that the towers collapsed in 10 seconds. It doesn't matter if George Bush said so, or Mother Teresa or any other non-scientific entity which doesn't provide documentation to support the claim.
The FACT is that seismic records, carefully corroborated with video footage show that the actual times were more like 14 seconds.
The Pope might think differently..
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 And I said 13 seconds, you're saying 14 seconds, we can argue about the exact moment all we want, it doesn't make a bit of difference to my point. And that is, top down collapses are much slower, and don't have a constant acceleration. Which the towers did, up until when the core columns are visible. Discrediting engineers and architects based on investigation done by groups which serve special interest is demeaning to everything our country stands for.
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD Don't lie. You wrote 'All three 9/11 buildings fell at near free fall speed'.
64% of freefall is NOT near freefall. That is a gross distortion of fact.
Sure, if it were 90%, you might have a point. But that's not the way it was, so you don't have a point. Stop trying to make the non-point with incorrect claims.
You have zero respect for the professional engineers who spent years studying the collapses and published their findings. Look in the mirror.
But it gets worse.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD Engineering schools around the world accept the NIST findings as accurate; not a single peer-reviewed engineering paper has been published in an engineering journal which disputes the NIST findings in any significant way, and certainly not a single 9/11 Truther has done that.
So you can throw the word 'engineer' around as if it means something, but it's smoke and mirrors, nothing more. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? M.I.A. - they don't exist.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD YOu are simply not going to be able to handwave away the 10,000 page NIST report by a glib claim that top-down collapses don't have constant acceleration.
That's just a horrendous insult to the professional engineers who painstakingly worked to understand the complexity and published all the data with full peer review.
You should stick to things you understand instead of appointing yourself as an expert and perpetuating false information. What a disgrace.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 WOah! that wasn't my intention at all. I simply want to help the movement by possibly providing another piece of evidence. The evidence that supports the demolition theory is based in science and uses facts to back up all it's claims. You where using it for the latter, but if it in fact was a demolition than the differences should be visible. NIST papers are reviewed by people under their umbrella, where is open peer review?
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD Your comment is a word salad and makes no sense. There is no peer-reviewed engineering study which supports the controlled demolition theory. It doesn't exist. Check the journal of the ASCE, check the fire-science papers and journals.
What you claim simply does not exist.
Then you have the temerity to handwave the professional peer-review of the NIST scientists as if it didn't exist. But you are of course very wrong.
You've now invented a term - 'open peer review'. Word salad
AlienEntity1 1 month ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@AlienEntity1 *sigh* I can only say this, if you think the peer-review process is not corruptible than you need to do some more research. No group of engineers is going to bother reviewing a 10,000 page report outside of the group that made it, and in fact, hasn't. To the contrary, an entire group has been formed to counter their claims, and is an open peer-review able by anybody in the field. No one has come out to counter claim them either, so both should be held under the same light.
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD You are busy making weak excuses for the fact that 9/11 Truthers have done NO peer-reviewed engineering papers, no peer-reviewed fire science papers, not a single legitimately vetted study which demonstrates using either physics or physical evidence.
You shouldn't attack the real peer review when you can offer none for your arguments. That is laughable.
Oh, and the peer-review process is not perfect. In fact in the case of the infamous 'Active thermitic' paperthe process failed
AlienEntity1 1 month ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@notSiD LOL, yes, peer review can be subverted. Case in point and factual evidence:
Jones/Harrit 'Active thermitic materials paper' not properly peer reviewed
Chief Editor resigned in protest, since she had never seen it before its approval
One of the peer reviewers was involved in the study, a conflict of interest
The publication was exposed by its approval of a garbage paper for publication. This was documented by Philip Davis of the Scholarly Kitchen.
Yes, fraud has been exposed!
AlienEntity1 1 month ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@notSiD But the problem is you have zero evidence of lack of peer review for the papers supporting the plane/fire hypothesis, yet we have ample evidence of lack of peer review for the only truther paper to be published in a quasi-professional publication.
Oh dear, it looks like you've pawned yourself. Must hurt to be wrong so much of the time.....
AlienEntity1 1 month ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@notSiD Your basic (and very faulty) position is that:
a) Truther claims do not need peer review, they are valid because they have been made by truthers (such as David Chandler and his idiotic nanothermite rockets)
b) All peer review of scientific papers supporting the plane impact/fire hypothesis is invalid because it does not agree with your political agenda and cult beliefs.
You reject all normal scientific channels, yet claim to respect science. Really, really dumb.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@notSiD We can form 100 lobby groups to try to prove that the universe is only 10,000 years old, that doesn't make any difference to the truth or the facts.
Without the validation of the scientific community, such claims are nothing but pseudo-scientific crap. They deserve derision and humiliation.
You are also lying in the extreme to say that 'no one has come out to counter claim them'. That is just a blatant lie. It is transparent bullshit.
But you must lie to make your points.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago in playlist 9/11 debunking
@notSiD David Chandler himself used physics toolkit to show that WTC 1 fell at approximately 64% of freefall for the portion that was visible on the video he analyzed.
It doesn't matter what you think. the only thing that matters is the truth, and the truth is different from your claim. That is a problem for you.
You are arguing against reality, so you will fail every time. Only by avoiding facts can you keep up your charade. But you're still wrong, so it doesn't matter.
10s = nonsense
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@notSiD David Chandler himself used physics toolkit to show that WTC 1 fell at approximately 64% of freefall for the portion that was visible on the video he analyzed.
It doesn't matter what you think. the only thing that matters is the truth, and the truth is different from your claim. That is a problem for you.
You are arguing against reality, so you will fail every time. Only by avoiding facts can you keep up your charade. But you're still wrong, so it doesn't matter.
10s = nonsense
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 "LOL, the only similarity between the WTC collapses and controlled demolitions is that the buildings fell down somehow. That's where it ends."
I've shown compiled footage (e.g. watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg) to about a dozen friends and family members with no setup other than "tell me what you think about this video". Every single one has responded with something akin to "it's a demolition, so what?"
Try it, you might be surprised...
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@OneAmatoryScam You mean, if you ask uneducated laymen for their opinion and it's wrong, then you need to change reality to match their ignorance?
Nope, I don't do that. Reality dictates, not opinion. Period.
Try thinking like an adult instead of a small child. Consult qualified scientists and use knowledge.
Anybody can point at something and give an uninformed opinion. So what?
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
1. This is a masonry building. Masonry is brittle, and will shatter and crumble when stressed. Steel, which the 3 towers were made of, is ductile and slowly deforms under stress, especially when heated.
2. See how they have to break it in the middle? That's because the destruction occurs equally on both pieces at the point of impact because they're made of the same material, but this makes sense intuitively.
Verinage would not work on a steel framed building, nor on one not cut in the middle.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@OneAmatoryScam And your expertise on demolition is????? (silence)
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 "And your expertise on demolition is????? (silence)"
An engineering degree from a school consistently ranked in U.S. News and World Report's top 10 undergrad engineering schools, with plenty of relevant coursework in mechanical, civil, and materials engineering courses. How about you?
And by the way, if you say that only someone schooled and/or experienced specifically in demolitions is qualified to comment, then you need to throw out the vast majority of the NIST report.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam I think it's fair to say that a person who is trained in and experienced in demolitions is more qualified to comment on demolitions, yes!!
On designing buildings, no! But on blowing them up, certainly. What else would you think? That people who DO NOT have training in these areas are somehow nevertheless qualified....by the mere fact that they have attended graduate school in something else??
Who thinks this way??
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam You should note that, when the NIST embarked upon an investigation into the possibility of demolition explosives being employed, they relied on qualified experts in that particular field. What else would you have had them do??
They recognized the need for these qualifications and set about to consult with those experts. Unlike 9/11 Truthers, who seem to think that an opinion is all they need to 'prove' something scientific. Nothing could be further from the truth
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 No, they did not consult demolitions experts re bldg 7. They decided they didn't need to, claiming nobody had reported sounds in excess of 140 decibels at some arbitrary distance from the building, which they posited was the minimum sound level required to justify exploring this possibility.
This is ridiculous. If slower-burning, advanced explosive-incendiaries that they had no detailed documentation on were used, they would have no way of estimating the relevant sound levels.
OneAmatoryScam 1 month ago
@OneAmatoryScam Good frigging God man. The analysis WAS DONE BY EXPLOSIVES EXPERTS you dolt.
This is the kind of inexcusable lying that you truthers rely on. NCSTAR p 693 is titled 'PHASE I: EXPERT RECOMMENDED PREPARATIONS FOR
EXPLOSIVELY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ' WTF do you think that means?
Who do you think performed the SHAMRC Blast Models? Trained monkeys?
What a complete ass you are.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
I´m sure there are many ways to bring down a buidling in a controlled way.
And this is also why it looks that way.
An uncontrolled demolition would be look like something that happened at Delft University.
Am i right AlienEntity1? ;)
Noahshollow 3 months ago
@Noahshollow Maybe. It depends on the circumstances. The twin towers are also not like a controlled demolition.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Both Towers fell in the same manner.
Also wtc7 didn´t look it was falling uncontrolled.
Noahshollow 2 months ago
@Noahshollow Well, looks are all relative anyway. WTC 7 fell across at least 2 streets and did over $1 billion dollars damage to the buildings around it.
Obviously the towers did an enormous amount of damage to other buildings as well.
Controlled? Not by any normal standard of measurement, they aren't.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Do you think there is no harm to other buidlings at a controlled demolition at all?
It´s everytime a question about money. Whether it´s worth the money or not. Luckily there wasn´t that question on 9/11 cause the "Terrorists" attacked.
COME ON!!!! -.-
Noahshollow 2 months ago
@Noahshollow LOL, the only similarity between the WTC collapses and controlled demolitions is that the buildings fell down somehow. That's where it ends.
The list of differences is vast and overwhelms the similarities by a wide margin. Yes, the immense damage to the entire WTC complex by the towers would be one gigantic difference, but there are many others.
Truthers attempt to argue that WTC 7 is a CD because it fell 'neatly' into its own footprint. However, reality shows that it wasn't neat
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Wow, if the big difference you have is that they didn't fall neatly into their footprint, then you need to look closely. Cutter charges are visible, the buildings fall at near free-fall speed. The amount of energy generated by the fall, compared to top down collapses. The molten steel found underneath the rubble. Columns slashed at 45 degree angles at ground zero. I want to hear these differences your talking about.
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD This is delusional nonsense.
1) There are NO cutter charges visible. That is fantasy on your part.
2) They DID NOT FALL at near freefall, far from it. More nonsense from you.
3) There is no empirical evidence of molten steel. Please try to find some or desist making ridiculous claims. You cannot identify the composition of molten metal by a cursory look - you must do careful measurements. This was never done.
4) The cut column claim has been debunked years ago. Do some research.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 1. Oh you buy the poofs of smoke explanation which states the cause as pressure buildup from the falling mass above? HAHA
2. Are you suggesting the towers didn't fall between 10-13 seconds? Or are you saying that free fall speed is more like 9-8 seconds. I saw the same videos you did. And I see the debris beating the tower, but not by much. Comparing it to these top-down collapses is still revealing, because they are still so much slower.
3. And you say I don't do research? Ha
notSiD 1 month ago
@notSiD You've just listed a bunch of old, tired canards, mainly nonsense.
You might want to ask yourself why, in actual controlled demolitions, buildings DON'T fall at freefall speed.
You might ask WHY there is no molten steel at controlled demolitions.
Your own claims are internally inconsistent and illogical. They are nothing but a litany of false premises and outright disinformation. That is all you have to support your crazy conspiracy-driven agenda.
AlienEntity1 1 month ago
@AlienEntity1 Hehe, Assuming I haven't already done this already.
To answer your questions: The reason is because they explode the columns with something like C4, not thermate, which melts it away. And controlled demolition still falls a lot closer to free fall then top down collapses.
Look up the Great Thermate Debate, 9/11 blueprint for truth. that should get you started. To prove me wrong is to prove them wrong. i'm not saying believe me, GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF, That is all I ask.
notSiD 1 month ago
@Noahshollow Sorry, continued, wasn't so neat as claimed, as it did a huge amount of damage to both the Verizon bldg and Fiterman hall. The damage was so profound that in the case of the Verizon building they ' replaced 1,800 windows, 520,000 exterior bricks on the south wall and 22,500 cinder blocks on the building'. Cost, $1.4 billion. Fiterman hall had to be demolished later as it was irreparable - cost $325 million.
Total cost: more than $1.8 billion.
Hmm..that's not like any CD in history.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
@Noahshollow Just for fun, why don't you list the cost of adjacent building damage in real CD's versus the cost at the WTC complex.
Think it will compare? Think again. It won't. Not even remotely close.
9/11 was different from anything that's ever happened in America before or since.
AlienEntity1 2 months ago
1) not a steel framed building. This is a masonry building.
2) floors are taken out half way so both top and bottom are destroyed by equal force. The WTC tower had a top 15% destroying 85%?
3) there is a "jolt" (deceleration) when the top and bottom collide. No "jolt" when the top hits the bottom floors on the WTC towers.
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago 2
@Kill0Your0TV
1) It doesn't matter what material is used, all columns have a maximum strength and will fail if it is exceeded
2) verinage does not require a 50/50 split. It can be done 30/70. The salient part is the mass of the upper portion must be sufficient. In a very tall building this mass can be reached with a smaller percentage of the total floors, obviously
3) a 'jolt' will only occur with very clean impacts and symmetry. This did not happen with the towers. Hence no 'jolt'
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 1) Wrong, Steel framed buildings behave differently (can handle a much heavier load) from masonry buildings. You have an example of a steel framed building using the Verinage technique?
2) Again, do you have an example of a steel framed building behaving this way?
3) A "jolt" (momentary deceleration) MUST occur when 2 objects collide. There is no way around that.; It's the hard physics. Glad you agree there was no "jolt".
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago 2
@Kill0Your0TV Total nonsense.
Steel columns have a max strength. Exceed it and they buckle.
Concrete or masonry is very strong but different in quality. You simply are ignorant of structural engineering, that's all.
In fact a masonry building is far more resistant to fire than a steelframe one. Oops! Guess you truthers forgot that! LOL
3) If I throw a brick thru a window there isn't much 'jolt'. It depends on the resistance encountered. Large mass hits a bolt or flange, the jolt is small.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV
Again, real structural engineers, in fact America's top engineers, have looked at the collapses and explained the events. Truthers refuse these rational, competent explanations since they contradict truther's religious belief in CD.
Oh well. Truthers are wrong.
btw, there are changes in instantaneous acceleration in the tower collapses, while measurements are not able to be too fine due to video limitations. There is evidence of impact for sure, but not giant jolts.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Besides, you're side-stepping and ignoring the fact that the tower collapses were highly asymmetrical (there was tilting on initiation) and involved weakened steel structure at point of failure. Also that the impacts of structure were very complex, not neat and tidy like the verinage controlled demolitions.
These were not controlled demolitions. Clearly. There's zero evidence that they were.
btw, there's no evidence of cutter charges on the columns. Failures were examined!
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV ie it's irrelevant what you think, because the facts, the empirical evidence does not support the truther meme of controlled demolition.
There WAS ZERO EVIDENCE OF CUTTER CHARGES ON THE STEEL. Period.
Zero means NOTHING. NADA
Most of the columns did not buckle, but instead the connections (bolts mostly) sheared off - the point of least resistance was where they broke.
No evidence of explosives on the steel. Another truther FAIL
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@AlienEntity1 LOL. In denial much? Yes, the hundreds of witnesses hearing/witnessing explosions, the melted steel, the hard physics, yes it's all nonsense. Keep protecting the war-mongering criminals.
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Yes, I deny that the sound of an explosion necessarily indicates high explosive cutter charges. There's no empirical evidence to support that claim.
Here's a video exploring eyewitness reports of 'explosions' watch?v=dizurbqG50U
There is no empirical evidence of melted steel, sorry. The only thing you have is some anecdotal reports, but no metallurgical testing, and the reports were not from metal experts either.
There was indeed molten metal - probably Al, Tin, Lead, Copper
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV And you're introducing a red herring - the physics and empirical evidence have NOTHING to do with the behavior of the US government in foreign wars etc... Those are not the same issues. I do not agree with the warmongering of US leaders, but I also do not agree that the WTC were destroyed by controlled demolition.
There is no real evidence to support these truther claims. Allegations and suspicion are not enough.
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
It's the controlled demolition. You have to intelligently remove one floor - all structural columns and walls - at one moment. The floor in the middle.
kokpit 3 months ago
@kokpit That's the 'perfect, ideal' collapse. However, collapse which is not perfect and ideal can also happen. For example the University of Delft in 2008 - reinforced concrete building, one tower collapsed leaving only the stairwell area.
It's caught on video. The WTC tower collapses were NOT neat and tidy, they were asymmetric and chaotic. Yet conspiracy theorists insist this was some kind of CD....??
AlienEntity1 3 months ago
Also, not steel-framed building, no concrete core, no melted steel, no vaporized steel ejections, no thermite samples, no violent ejections of steel or debris...how much more do I need to go on? Also, please DON'T watch this video: /watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8 No near free-fall speed, already said massive deceleration. Explosives ejections not going out on each floor w/ corner intact. Also DON'T watch the original: /watch?v=smreRx51cus&feature=related PLEASE don't watch the actual collapse.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD Please don't read FDNY statements that WTC 7 was expected to collapse, that it was leaning, that it was fully involved.
That would spoil your malicious revisionist twisting of facts and history, and we don't want that, do we? We don't want to face facts and evidence, do you truthers - you'd rather recite your fantasies like trained parrots.
Talk about sheep. The way you're bleating, I'd say the wool was pulled well over your eyes. Wake up!
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Red Herring Alert, but hey, if you want to go ahead and divert it to Building 7, when B-L-A-T-A-N-T-L-Y I was talking about the Twin Towers in my previous posts, go ahead! Also, thanks for addressing my other contentions and arguments, a Straw Man sure disproves all other key evidence of a CD! :) But, I will address all of your arguments and easily refute them. First off, Building 7 Reports of "leaning" have nothing to do with the Twin Towers, so no explanation there...
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 This link is what you need to read on about the witnessing statements of the Building 7 reports of collapse by the FDNY. journalof911studies(dot)com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven(dot)pdf There is several things wrong here, 1st of Lets induce some Selective Amnesia and forget that the Actual collapse of Building 7 was a full-blown bottom-up demolition w/ symmetry, detonations, explosions and rate of collapse!
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD Nope. Case studies of actual controlled demolitions show that the situation of WTC 7 was clearly not CD.
Real CD's do not fall at the rate of freefall, yet truthers constantly bleat that freefall is the special indicator. They need to do more research.
And no explosive controlled demolition happens without loud explosions at the time of collapse. That didn't happen with WTC 7, so it rules out explosives. Reality just doesn't work the way truthers want it too.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 The reports from the FDNY were nothing more than statements about partial collapse made by two to three of the Chiefs which did spread on to the entire group as they were told what were to happened...they did not expect what actually happened and were quite stunned. Also, they had been on the scene of the WTC Twin Tower's collapse and saw what minimal fires had done and were only thinking the worst of WTC 7, baffled from a clear Top-Down Demolition that defied many laws of Physics.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD FDNY specifically had city engineers come to look at the building, and determined that it was probably going to collapse.
The record is VERY clear in this regard. Con Edison was also notified to shut down the substation for that reason by FDNY.
You can evade the FDNY information all day long, but it destroys your arguments completely.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD Apart from FDNY there is zero evidence of any cutter charges on a single piece of steel recovered and examined at Freshkills by forensic teams. A number of highly qualified demolition experts were at GZ almost immediately after 9/11 with teams, yet they observed no evidence of CD either.
The only failure modes seen on steel were consistent with fire-induced gravitational collapse.
One thing you wrote sets of alarm bells, the 'defied the laws of physics' canard. Facepalm...
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD As soon as a truther uses the talking point 'defied laws of physics' you know they don't understand physics and are merely reciting a talking point.
I'm sorry, but if you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community (engineering community) you have to at least know what you're talking about. Reading from a script doesn't work with educated people.
That method failed about 5 years ago and 9/11 truth is dying out partly for that reason - inability to adapt to reality.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Also, radio-in'd reports told them that a collapse was imminent, as there is video evidence of workers with radios saying the "Buildings were going to blow!" And there are witnesses who overheard countdowns done by these people and the BBC reported 20 minutes before the actual collapse that it had collapsed! :) The rest believed so, confused, baffled from what they were hearing and quickly contracted mindless group-think like you, me and the rest of the population.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD You are referring to one witness who claimed to hear a countdown. What's interesting is that his story became embellished. The first time he told it (on camera) he said he couldn't hear what was said, but it was short phrases.
Later, he claimed it was a countdown.
So a gullible (and sneaky) person like you will automatically believe his word.....while ignoring all others against it... not a smart move on your part.
BBC report? So now you're in the 'no mistake' camp? LOL
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD BBC continued - so you're one of those people who can't understand that news organizations make mistakes every day, and have to issue corrections.
EVERY DAY, 365 days a year.
Yet when a mistake is made on 9/11, the paranoia-addled mind (yours, apparently) wrongly attributes this to some nefarious MSM plot. There is zero logic to this. Your idea requires the network reporters and their bosses to be 'in' on the scam, meaning they are all in collusion. Oy vey! That's a conspiracy!!
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD So your enormous 'they are in on it' conspiracy theory hinges around a mistake made by one reporter..... Hmmm, again, not logical, not very intelligent.
Earlier, it was reported a Cessna flew into WTC 1, not a 767. According to your logic, this was also part of the plot...or was it a mistake? Did the NWO order the news channel to report it as a Cessna for some particular reason that you can think of?
There was also a false report of a van with a bomb. Part of the conspiracy too?
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 So, that parody of "Please don't read" is not comparable to my witness statements because the witnesses in this situation claimed that they were making predictions that the building was going to partially or gradually collapse from fires whereas the witnesses in the previous situation were reporting internal explosions and heard detonators going off as the building collapsed! There's a clear distinction than seeing nothing out of the blue for a building...
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 ...that just received a few hundred tons of flaming, smoking debris from the North Tower and caught on fire! They were making hasty generalization fallacies and predicting from insufficient information, deluded and had clogged interpretation. But, hearing multiple, consecutive explosions going off cannot be a prediction/fallacy, it is an observation made and nothing more. And leaning does not support the actual collapse model because the building didn't have a partial/very ...
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Gradual collapse. So next, no it wouldn't spoil as I have shown. Predictions made in the heat of the day mean nothing more than misinterpreted hypothesis that were not made from a truly rational mind , many have been planted just as they have written up in Northwoods to fabricate evidence and fool everyone just as we saw in the BBC Anomaly, which they claim they never did. And you don't want to face the facts and evidence clearly, you just go on a quote mining field trip!
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD No, I'm just not a gullible twit who can't separate fiction from reality. I'm a skeptic,not a believer.
I'm not one of the chosen 'flock' of truthers who hold a secret insight into every aspect of 9/11 which allows them to peer into a conspiracy that never existed. Truthers like you understand engineering better than any trained engineer; you know more about demolition than actual demolition experts.
I guess nobody needs to go to university anymore, just watch youtube videos...
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 I will rebut all of these when I find time and do some more research... but this I had to comment on. You are no "Skeptic." If you were a skeptic, you would be asking for a new investigation, but of course your Cognitive Dissonance issue keeps you from thinking that because you associate that with being a twoofer. It's just like the goons on JREF who say that they are all skeptics, when in reality they are holding double standards because they aren't even skeptical of the original
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Conspiracy Theory. Forget all of the experts on AE911truth, but wait, go ahead and spread your copy and pasted Ad Hominem from your Debunking Hubs. You are holding double standards thinking that passports, credit cards, and other ID can jump out of someone's pocket, open the cabin door and escape the fireball just in time while the Black Boxes in the same trajectory with more mass and inertia fail to survive. You are holding double standards thinking that a Red Bandana from Flight
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 93 can survive unsinged without any dirt while the entire plane literally disintegrates and then all of the people can survive. You are holding double standards to ignore all of the drills and war games that they were doing all the way up to 9/11 involving 9/11 scenarios that contradicted Rice and Bush. You are holding double standards to ignore all of the Extensive history of False Flags that the United States has been involved in including Operation Ajax, Gladio and Northwoods
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 The Bay of Tonkin False Flag which got us into Vietnam and killed 50,000 American Soldiers. The USS Liberty False Flag. The Pearl Harbor Ignored Warnings by FDR. MKULTRA. Iran-Contra. CIA Drug Ops. You seem to ignore all of those. Ignore our complicity with the Taliban for removal of Soviets out of Northern Afghanistan. Ignore the Pentagon's AA Defense Measures. Ignore J. Michael Springmann who was forced by the CIA to give out visas to these men.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Ignore the multiple money wiring from the gov't to these individuals. Ignore that they weren't devout Muslims, they were incessantly sinning for years, not the fallacious claim that they did it months before. Forget that the Alqaeda has links to the CIA. Forget Anwar Al-Awlaki who recruited Honi Honjour, Nidal Hassan, Time Square Attempted Bomber, Richard Reid the shoebomber, and the Christmas Day Bomber who ate at the Pentagon a week after the attacks and wasn't killed until
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 killed until recently, just like Bin Laden which can taunt our most sophisticated of satellites across the world releasing video after video. If that doesn't seem like a joke to you, then something is DAMN wrong with your brain. Forget Bin Laden's ties to the CIA, forget the multiple chances and warnings the federal gov't received about the impeding threat of the hijackers. Forget no air-response, oh wait they were running war games, forget no helicopter rescue oh wait Tripod 2.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Bow down to NIST, they're models are highly accurate, just like the Building 7 CGI model which was insanely accurate and a replicate of the actual collapse. Don't be skeptical that they refuse to release the parameters and that they falsified column destruction and contorted the measurements under the FOIA. Don't be skeptical about their fallacious explanations for the Twin Towers which you seem to avoid and divert the attention away from.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Also DON'T be suspicious that NIST is a government agency and the burden of proof, especially when the government has committed real conspiracies in the past and killed thousands of innocent people as a result, which of course lies in the government having its own agencies help prove its innocence. Don't read Cass Sustein's paper on Cognitive Infiltration and how he accepts how PM and NIST had govern't connections designed to rebut these theories that are supposedly
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 3rd Party groups giving genuine opinions and facts. Also ignore in the Cognitive Infiltration paper how Cass talked about infiltrating online groups and chat rooms and posting disinfo websites to break these groups up. Please don't be skeptical about any of your debunking Hubs. Also, don't be skeptical about having no trial for Osama Bin Laden and his amazing gang of people who can gain NORAD's itineraries from SCIFs but forget that Bush is in Booker Elementary school or that
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 And forget that Rumsfield's office is the other side of the Pentagon! LOL! Don't be skeptical that Bush stayed at the school after the warnings of the hijackings, because the Secret Service know for a fact that he isn't in danger and of course NORAD's doughnut effect temporarily suspends to tell them that they aren't in the terrorist's range. And of course don't be skeptical about that. And even more, don't be skeptical about the huge motives of the federal gov't.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 How PNAC and Dick Cheney all called for terror attacks so that they could recieve massive funding for the Military-Industrial Complex. And the trillions in war debt, the trillions in opium trade, the billions in oil, forget about no trial for anyone, forget that the FBI can't link OBL to 9/11. Forget that they have changed the story 10,000 times. Don't be suspicious, but be skeptical about people who ask questions, they're damned lunatics who are Conspiracy Theorists and you're not
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD I just read a couple more of your posts and I've concluded you have some kind of thinking disorder. You are rationalizing away everything that undermines your fixed belief, yet you don't pause to consider that you might be incorrect.
That's where you've gone off the rails and down the rabbit hole. Oh well, not many people give a crap what nutbars think anyway, so you can rail on about this stuff until you're blue in the face. It won't change reality.
You can count on that.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
Love the MASSIVE deceleration about 9 Seconds to demolish approximately 20 stories, asymmetrical slopping of fully intact debris, and only one set of the "ejections" going off @0:29. LOL, @ 0:31 Bedunkers getting orgasms saying "SQUIBS" until 0:34's water droplets! :) No huge floating pyroclastic flow, no flashes, no loud booming and no witnesses saying "Detonators." Also, building is pulled HALFWAY DOWN, as you can see that part was already pre-configured for this demolition technique.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@NothingAtAllXD Dude, get a freaking grip. You believe every urban legend about 9/11.
1) There were NO pyroclastic flows, this is unsupported bullshit
2) There were no demolition 'squibs'. Not one demolition expert thinks so. Please find one who does.LOL
3) No melted steel
4) No vaporized steel
5) No thermite samples
how much more do I need to debunk? You believe pure crap. Pure, unadalterated crap.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 No I don't. I heavily rebut the "No-planes" Theories. 1). There WAS pyroclastic flow. Did you not see the huge surge running over the NJ River? Read this: earthinstitute(dot)columbia(dot)edu/news/story11_16_01.html scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage all were cited for referencing the clouds to Pyroclastic Flow. Now a volcanic pyroclastic flow, that's VERY different but this one was for sure because of it fluid motion TOWARDS the opposite direction of gravita...
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 tational force, it was rising up in the air clearly in massive quantities. They must have been super-heated gases to be able to achieve this momentum, force and inertia that it did. Obviously! The thickness and definition of the cloud also gave it away that some sort of exotic weapon system with the combination of mast plastic explosives and super heating incendiaries to create such dense, and quickly rising set of gases. But if you want to talk volcanic connotation and get...
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Bedunker's Technicality Double Standard Syndrome, then you will try to point out that there is no significance in these clouds which were composed of a great portion of the previously fully intact structural steel, drywall and concrete reduced to a gaseous cloud erupting throughout the streets, then go ahead and Straw Man! If you prove my use of the word that describes the evidence wrong, then you prove the observations wrong! YEAH!
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
Respond to this video... 2). Please watch this video entirely and educate yourself on the credible experts who are qualified to speak all coming out: /watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ! Yes, there are 2 demolition experts in this video: A). Tom Sullivan, an explosions technician @ CDI B). Steve Luce- a former 12 Bravo combat engineer in the U.S. Army trained. He trained extensively for 4 years in the use of plastic, liquid, and powder explosives. Many more experts although I don't have time to name them.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 3). Melted Steel Reports all seen w/ video footage and witness testimony. Not Pb or Al, because they are opposite color at that temp. and cannot mix w/ office materials. Empirically proven that. Just do some searches. 4). Did you not see the smoking steel from the collapse? Forming vapors on it and the North Tower leaning back into itself and disintegrating and vaporizing during the collapse? How deluded can you be? 5). /watch?v=i6q19bL_n9I Watch that video w/ a qualified expert.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 Here's another video: /watch?v=1ger0lTKnis Watch that too! /watch?v=4RNyaoYR3y0 And this! But the Explosive Evidence Documentary is really the best explaining how they are arranged under a microscope, theoretically impossible from any natural formation due to the redundant pattern showing military-grade fabrication. But of course you like to ignore the fact that this demolition and the WTC Twin Tower demolition were VERY distinct. I'll talk to you this weekend if I get a chance ...
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1 To actually cite all of the stuff I want to, I'm providing minimal allusions and references right now as I am very busy but trying to give you a quick response.
NothingAtAllXD 4 months ago
@alienEntity1, I have a test for you to do. Buy a model airplane drive a stake in the ground. Then fly the right wing of the model plane into the stake then tell me it doesn't turn to the right. When the wings of the airplane hit the light poles the plane could not have made it to the pentagon and cause all the damage they said happened. That is a fact of physics. I told you I worked with airplanes and know that this is a fact. If a plane hit the pentagon why is there not an outline of a plane.
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 Good god man. The physics of large objects do not directly scale to small objects.
That's why a flea can jump many times its own height, but an elephant cannot. You need to slow down and start thinking straight. I explained to you that anFEA was done on both the towers and pentagon by purdue university.
What part of that do you not understand? Finite Element Modeling is the standard for computer design and testing in the 21st century. Most cars and planes are designed that way.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@jimsanders1 Yeah, and you'd probably start arguing that the plane should've bounced off the pentagon, because a model airplane would bounce off reinforced concrete. I've heard this nonsense before many times - and it's still wrong.
AlienEntity1 4 months ago
@AlienEntity1, I promise you that if I were to put all the evidence from 9-11 into tracks that a rabbit leaves behind it when it is in the snow. That I could track and kill every rabbit I see with a 22 long rifle gun without missing a shot. That is a fact!!! I believe you must have stockholm syndrome, because you see the evidence, but still run back to your abuser the government. I bet you think that Obama was born in Hawaii. You still think that Obama's birth certificate is real and not fake!
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@AlienEntity1, You can't change the fact that Larry said what I told you he said on PBS America Rebuilds. I was talking about adding things up on 9-11. I do know about airplanes I worked with them. One day I saved more than 80 people from dying. I know that if a plane hits a metal pole at 300 to 500 MPH with its right wing the plane will turn to the right. That is not my opinion it's a fact of science. If you haven't worked with airplanes then go research what happens if a wing hits a metal pole
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 I hate arguing with idiots. What you've just stated is not a fact of science, it's the opinion of a fool.
I already gave you a reference to the FEA study done by Purdue. Before you continue to dig deeper into the rabbit hole, look at the study. You clearly do not understand either momentum or the physics of impacts.
If you can offer scientific proof (as the FEA does) to support your opinion please do so now or STFU.
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@AlienEntity1, If you add it all up there is more to the story then what they tell us. The Truth always comes out in what people say. When Larry said what he said it points to they had the WTC 7 ready to collapse when ever the wanted it to collapes. Why hide all the video of the plane hitting the pentagon if someone else did it? If the plane was flying at more than 300mph and the right wing hits a metal pole the plane will spin to the right not just knock the pole over. It's all fishy!
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 No, you're reading into the comments of Silverstein things he didn't say. You have no business claiming these speculations as a reflection of reality. They aren't. You are continuing to ignore the fact that Chief Nigro specifically address the point.
Why do you ignore evidence?
Then you start spouting off about the Pentagon. Well, you've failed to produce evidence for your first point (you misquoted Silverstein, remember?), then you move onto the next myth? Forget it.
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 Your attempt to misdirect the discussion onto another subject (which you completely misunderstand as well) is not going to fly! Sorry.
btw, Purdue university did a FEA analysis which proves you wrong. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Get knowledge, and stop believing these stupid urban legends.
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@AlienEntity1, I just watched the PBS video, and heard Larry say from his own mouth. "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. Then they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." To get WTC 7 to collapse explosives had to be already in place. It means they knew ahead of time.
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 You've morphed Jim. You first said Larry said 'just pull the building'. Well, guess what? You were wrong, he never said pull the building. In fact, nobody recorded the conversation so we're basing this discussion on what Larry recollected 4 years later for chrissake! Get real.
Show me where Larry and Chief Nigro say that explosives were in place to demolish the building. Oh, you can't, because NOBODY BUT TRUTHERS EVER SAYS THIS!!!!!! NOBODY.
Not Larry, not FDNY. Only truthers...
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 You're missing the part where Chief Nigro says ''A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.'
RU mentally deficient? Can you not read? WTF is preventing you from understanding the words of the FDNY Chief??????
He said 'PULL BACK THE FIREFIGHTERS', not 'light the demolition explosives'. Gawd...
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 You're missing the part where Chief Nigro says ''A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.'
RU mentally deficient? Can you not read? WTF is preventing you from understanding the words of the FDNY Chief??????
He said 'PULL BACK THE FIREFIGHTERS', not 'light the demolition explosives'. Gawd...
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 You truthers are so obsessed with the meme of controlled demolition that if somebody farts, it's a high explosive cutter charge.
Unbelievable stupidity.
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@alienenetity, Larry said we had such loss of life and to pull it, then we watched WTC 7 collapse. He said this on a PBS show called America rebuilds.
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 Yeah, we all know about this. He was talking to FDNY about their men being in jeopardy. Do you need the quote? I guess you will keep your head in the sand until you read it....
'A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.' FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro
Any questions? That's what Silverstein referred 2
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
@alienentity, I watched and heard Larry say we have had such loss of life just pull the building, and then we watched the building fall.
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 Nope, that's not what he said. You remember incorrectly. I could quote it for you, but I'm so bored with this myth that I'm not going to bother.
You're wrong, get your facts straight.
ps he was talking to an FDNY chief, and the chief later wrote that he pulled his men from the area around WTC 7. I can quote that for you too, but you can take my word for it. I am right.
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
The owner of the WTC 7 said we have had such loss of life just pull it and then we watched building 7 fall. How could they pull the building if they didn't already know it had explosives in it ready to bring it down. Things add up!!! If you were to add up everything, and it was like bread crums I would have already found and killed the mouse 100,000,000 times.
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@jimsanders1 Yes, Larry Silverstein recalled his conversation - not with a demolition team but with one of the FDNY chiefs! FDNY were not doing demolition on 9/11, they were trying to rescue people and protect them.
FDNY Chief Nigro 'A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.'
RU calling him a liar
AlienEntity1 5 months ago
Tell me how you get for the first time in history that a steal building falls 3 steal buildings fall and all buildings owned by the same man. If a passport is in an airplane how does it not get burned up when the plane explodes into fire and burns all around it? Things don't add up. Why won't they release the video of the plane hitting the pentagon? If what they claim happened the video would prove it. They lied so they can't show the video.
jimsanders1 5 months ago
@alienentity1, This building also had main corner supprot removed along with other support removed. WTC 7 didn't have all the work done to it that this building had done to it to bring it down. There was hundreds of hours in this building to bring it down. It is said that WTC 7 fell because of fire. Before any building fell Jennings said bombs were going off in WTC 7, and one bomb blew him up into the air. This was before any building fell. If this was outside than why keep secretes from us!!
jimsanders1 5 months ago