The only explosions that went off, were exactly where the digital "planes" hit. That's it. The WTC was a controlled underground nuclear demolition. 80% of the towers were turned to dust. That explains all the controversy with "planes" (no actual evidence) and all the confusion with how could 2 towers be entirely wired (they weren't). Watch Dimitri Khalezov's documentary interview / testimony to learn the truth. Need more? Radiation-related sicknesses are affecting the 9/11 Rescue Workers.
@TheSkepticalIdealist i don't give a flying fuck what you or what you think "fellow truthers" think about me ... the truth is available to to those that are looking for it. You, on the other hand, are free to continue believing the various bullshit stories floating around, including the biggest bullshit story of all called the 9/11 Commission Report. No planes hit the towers. 3 underground nuclear detonations took down WTC 1,2 and 7, and a missile hit the Pentagon.
@TheSkepticalIdealist wait wait wait ... you forgot to include ridicule in your posts ... you posted the standard "crazy" comments just fine but you really need to add more ridicule to your posts otherwise your lame-ass attempt to discredit really lack the bite needed to ward off the curious onlookers, which is ultimately what you're gunning for. But go ahead, i'll let you course correct :)
Curious onlookers? Anyone that takes digital planes any nuclear bombs on 911 seriously is not someone capable of coherent logical thought processes. That's why only a fringe minority of your fellow conspiracy theorists actually take you seriously, and truthers are a fringe minority to start with. I don't need to discredit you, because there are truthers extremely pissed off that you guys are making them look bad
@TheSkepticalIdealist i'm not sure the "crazy" angle is ultimately gonna hold up for you. As for the "truthers", i hope they get just as angry at fuckballs like you and the bigger fuckballs that continue to push the BS of "planes" hitting the towers. The fact that the alleged hijackers are still alive and well should have been a BIG fucking clue but some people are just dense. Watch the Dimitri Khalezov documentary interview and learn what happened on 9/11.
See what I mean...The hijackers are not still alive and you have zero evidence that they are. If you actually look up who these "alive" hijackers are meant to be, they have different names, different bithdates, different families and they look different. Nearly a decade old retracted BBC news article is all you have. Why isnt the "you're crazy" angle going to "work" for me? Everyone thinks you're crazy even the majority of the truth movement which are fringe as it is.
You do not know anything either, and obviously you have not read anything. Quiet? Are you kidding? There is plenty of evidence of explosions in those buildings. There is so much evidence it is overwhelming. Do you have idea how many witnesses there are to explosions. Why don't you go on youtube and hear them for yourself, and listen to the people testifying about them. Again, you are just another person trying to plant false seeds in people's minds when they read these messages.
"Quiet? Are you kidding? There is plenty of evidence of explosions in those buildings."
-
Sorry, no you're wrong. We expect peopel to report explosions in fires, its COMMON. Got that? Transformers exploding, blackdraft, fuel-air explosions, even steel breaking has been described as like bomb going off before. What you dont have is any explosions consistent with MASSIVE EXPLOSIVES flinging steel hundreds of feet away like Gage claims. Watch the video.
@TheSkepticalIdealist "We expect peopel to report explosions in fires......" Is that the "royal We"? You say, "watch the video" (singular), but I say watch the numerous videos in which you can hear many explosions (explosions sounding exactly like controlled demolition (watch the numerous videos of controlled demolitionl) before the collapse and during the collapse. And then watch the numerous videos of people testifying about explosions, before and during the collapse. .
@anastasia2657 - ...continued...- - "you can hear many explosions (explosions sounding exactly like controlled demolition" - Lies. there is no video showing any explosions that sound like controlled demolition. Which btw no controlled demolition in the world is even trying to be anywhere near powerful enough to fling heavy steel h - " people testifying about explosions," - Explosions in fires are common, is that difficult for you to understand?
@anastasia2657 - ...continued...- - "you can hear many explosions (explosions sounding exactly like controlled demolition" - Lies. there is no video showing any explosions that sound like controlled demolition. Which btw no controlled demolition in the world is even trying to be anywhere near powerful enough to fling heavy steel h - " people testifying about explosions," - Explosions in fires are common, is that difficult for you to understand?
You are obviously one of those people who do not read, and simply engage in presumptions. Of course they made tests. You obviously have not read their papers. And why would you presume this is a "crappy" journal. What a word! What nerve you have. All of these men who have started this journal have impeccable credentials. You don't know what you are talking about. You have not read anything; and you know nothing. You are simply trying to plant false seeds
But not ones that would give definitive conclusions. they even say it isnt thermite because it gives out too much energy, but then say it has to be super thermite! They didnt even test in an oxygen free environment. Bet you dont know why that matters.
""And why would you presume this is a "crappy" journal. "
-
Uh, because the the editor quit never seeing the paper? They have accepted faked papers, and more editors have quit. They even spam scientists to become editors of journals in subjects they arent even qualified in. It is not a legitimate respected journal, sorry.
Firstly, there is proof that thermate was used because the scientists found unexploded thermate, and it is not one scientist but many. That is a given. And because they FOUND thermate, does not exclude that other explosives were used. Finding that they used thermate does not exclude other explosives, and that is their position. Furthermore, they have said that this nano-thermate that was used has explosive characteristics. This was not ordinary thermate. It was high-tech nano thermate.
Firstly, they do not even claim to have found thermate. Its "nano thermite". Second, they did nothing of the kind and their own data shows it cannot be thermite, they just claim it must be soopadoopa thermite but they wont do any tests to definitely confirm that, they didnt even test in an oxygen free enviroment. They then published in crappy journal known for their terrible standards where the editor quit saying she never saw it
And btw how does this relate to this video? How do you defend Richard Gage claiming that huge massive explosives flung heavy steel hundreds of feet yet was so quiet it wasnt picked up on any video?
"Simply edit what he is saying, and put words in his mouth. "
-
Prove it. Other truthers have claimed I have quoted him out of context and then went ahead and claimed the same thing i said Gage was claiming. So you gonna tell me how to put Gage's words in context that make sense?
15% of a top structure cannot destroy 85% of a bottom structure via a gravity collapse. It's an impossibility. It defies fundamental physics. There is no experiment or example on earth that can replicate that ridiculous theory.
The most probable and obvious explanation is controlled demolition. It fits all of the available evidence
15% of a top structure cannot destroy 85% of a bottom structure via a gravity collapse. It's an impossibility. It defies fundamental physics. There is no experiment or example on earth that can replicate that ridiculous theory.
The most probable and obvious explanation is controlled demolition. It fits all of the available evidence.
so whats ur point of this video... that ur good at believing of what ur goverment says?.... hahahaahahah jack ass... everything points to an inside job jackass
@TheSkepticalIdealist well... when ur a child - ur told what to do... when ur grown up - u think with ur head.... its ur choice what u wanna be... may god help u
I dont care what the government says. You guys are a small fringe minority, no one cares about any of you. Look at the Occupy movements, the London Riots, etc,... how many people are talking about 911?? AE911 are an irrelevant fringe bunch of incompetent nobodies that havent published or even tried to publish a single paper about 911 in a reputable journal despite hundreds of papers and plenty of discussion about it in the science and engineering world.
Just keep repeating your faith over and over, thats all you can do. Meanwhile the world cares about more important things and your kind fade more and more into obscurity.
@TheSkepticalIdealist The 911 "TM" is like a 3 card monty street game. There is always a ready made "Theory" ready to be flopped down where they need it.
Scientific observation, experience, and commonsense rule out the beliefs that nano-thermite/mate and gravity could have turned the Twin Towers into dust, or that office fires and gravity could have turned the Twin Towers into dust.
Alex Jones is only one of many popular alternative deceivers.
Energy is infinite. This is the secret the controllers don't want out, but the September 11 False Flag and Creation itself are evidence that energy is infinite. That means of control is coming to an end.
@bd886 I know those architects and engineers simply signed a petition calling for another investigation, but I think it's okay to pretend that they actually did some actual analysis (even though they didn't!) and it's fine to suggest that there were civil engineers even though there were hardly any. Psst! Don't tell the debunkers that hardly any of the petition signers have any expertise in structural engineering materials engineering, fire protection engineering, or forensic engineering!
I simply ask this. If it were a CD, then why did the "government" fly planes into the building. Why not just simplify the whole event, and use explosives to take down the towers, and then claim the terrorists used explosives. And secondly, why did the collapse begin precisely at the floor the planes hit? Good planning there by the culprits. To hit the proper floors that were rigged to start the collapse.
@quedorf I had a troofer answer that one by declaring that explosive charges were placed on every single structural column on every single floor above the 20th floor in both towers!! =D
126 columns per floor x 90 floors x 2 buildings = 22,680 charges!!1!!
@Elxchupacabra07 I use the previous evidence that they provide to show that it does not work. All evidence has to match up with the ct's witnesses this also includes the news witness which they do not understand figure of speech. I pointed at richard gage silent thermite as a contradiction. this also includes nano thermite aka thermite paint.
@warlord2080 And here I thought it had already been destroyed by the fact that nobody in the office and basement with him heard the impacts. They all heard the freight elevator crashing, though!
So richard gage was going on about controlled demolitions like explosives but then later he switched to thermite. As theskepticalidealist is pointing out termite is an incendary it has no way of exploding like a demolition charge to hurl beams and be silent at the same time. as far as I am aware thermite has never been used in a CD ever.
@warlord2080 I dont think anybody, including twoofers, understand what kind of a living richard gage has made off of his claims. Twoofers think that "OH hes just coming out and disproving the stupid gubmit" when actually, he followed along with Dylan Avery Luke Rudowski and Alex Jones that all made a MASSIVE amount of money from the "Truth" movement. This is why they get so pissed off when you tell them they're wrong, or ignore the answer to their questions. Theyre protecting their investments
@Theskepticalidealist they did published in the bentham open, but it has been scrutinized and one of the publishers resigned because she did not know and they sneak this paper in the journal.
Not just one editor, multiple editors have resigned over the shoddy qualify of Bentham. Just because a paper is published in a good journal doesnt mean its true of course, but it says something about the basic standards achieved. before this Bentham paper they all hated peer review, because of course none of them had any papers published in any mainstream journals apart from their own fake one, then with Bentham suddenly they cant stop talking about this peer reviewed paper.
"Explosives capable of hurling steel around would have taken out half of Lower Mantatter with its blast wave including any people in its radius."
The debris field, as I have already mentioned several times, was ~1200ft for each tower, according to every single report I've read, official or alternative.
Gravitational collapse cannot account for several tonne colo\umn sections travelling this far vertically...but you seem content evading this point.
"The debris field, as I have already mentioned several times, was"
-
You clearly have no idea how explosives work. 110 story skyscrapers collapsing is going to create a large debris field. High explosives however work by supersonic BLAST WAVES. If you don't have blast waves you have NO POWER in the explosive. Without a blast wave you have no sound, without sound you have no blast wave. A blast wave IS sound. In a high explosive blast you can LITERALLY SEE THE BLAST WAVE.
@TheSkepticalIdealist "110 story skyscrapers collapsing is going to create a large debris field"
No shit, sherlock! You completely evaded the point! Gravitational collapses do not hurl several tonne column sections 600ft horizontally - physically impossible - do you not the the colums sections embedded in the buildings 600ft away? Gravity cannot cause this, and still does not spring...
"In a high explosive blast you can LITERALLY SEE THE BLAST WAVE."
"No shit, sherlock! You completely evaded the point! "
-
No, you evaded the point. We can talk about what caused the effect so long as you first realise that explosives simply cannot account for it. We do not see any blast waves in any videos, we do not hear any detonations from any explosives. In REAL high explosives you can see a blast wave, huge sound, air literally condenses. Go look up a video by vsauce called "BIGGEST EXPLOSIONS" and see what real high explosives look like.
This entire video is cherry picked quotes taken out of context.
Gage is initially explaining why you'd use thermite/thermate instead of solely c4, because the thermite could be used to weaken the building slowly and quietly until it began to collapse, the collapse hiding the sounds/sights of sequential high explosives (which can still be clearly heard, and were reported by witnesses up to 5 blocks away.)
Gage does not say thermite exclusively...he did not rule out high exp How pathetic...
Whats pathetic is that you clearly didnt understand or read my annotations. The bottom line is that Gage is the one claiming that heavy steel was hurled around by intense explosives. When told that this would be loud and that no such detonations were recorded when this was supposed to be happening, he responds saying thats why they would have used thermite because its quieter. POINT: If its quiet it cant hurl steel anywhere.
Exactly - you are making a point about noise using quotes from Richard talking about the PERIOD OF TIME when thermite would be used. NOT the ENTIRE timeframe, but UP TO the point of collapse.
You then take a quote, from later on (as your annotations even state) to make him contradict himself regarding noise, when in fact he is THEN talking about the period from collapse onward.
Not really the fact is Richard Gage claims super high explosives hurled heavy steel around. As the caller noted we didnt hear any such detonations. Gage then says thats why they would have used thermite because its quieter. No matter how he thinks thermite works doesnt really matter, the main issue is that Gage claims massively intense high explosives went off but doesnt understand what the characteristics of high powered explosives are.
And unless I wasnt clear enough, only Betham and JEM are science journals anyway. JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant, I assume since you dodged the question last time that you wont be telling he what truthers have published there.
@TheSkepticalIdealist Sigh, so instead of 9/11, and the information contained in the peer reviewed published papers that we are talking about, you wish to talk about the legitimacy of the PLACE where these papers are?
As if the PLACE where these papers are published in any way shape or form refutes the facts within?
That's what I'd call willful ignorance.
"since you dodged the question last time "
You honestly too incompetent to google it yourself?
@TheSkepticalIdealist Sigh, so instead of 9/11, and the information contained in the peer reviewed published papers that we are talking about, you wish to talk about the legitimacy of the PLACE where these papers are?
As if the PLACE where these papers are published in any way shape or form refutes the facts within?
That's what I'd call willful ignorance.
"since you dodged the question last time "
You honestly too incompetent to google it yourself?
"You honestly too incompetent to google it yourself?
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse"."
-
Ok I missed this as it was listed as spam for some reason.. This is not a truther paper, its a paper that truthers hate because it talks about progressive colalpse from fire by Bazant which truthers think is in on it or something. .... At any rate, I am confused as to why you believe this is a truther paper. o_O
@TheSkepticalIdealist "The only reason you can't see a contradiction is because you too under the mistaken beleif that the sound we heard of the collapses is what we would expect from explosives hurling heavy steel around."
It doesn't matter if the sound we heard was explosives or natural collapse. That in no way shape or form has anything to do with the point I am making, and you are smart enough to know that. Don't play stupid.
@TheSkepticalIdealist For the LAST TIME - you took TWO quotes from TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS ie PERIODS OF TIME IN WHICH SOMEONE WAS REFERRING TO, AND PLACED THEM SIDE BY SIDE MAKING THEM APPEAR AS A CONTRADICTION.
Honestly man, that is some low-level dishonesty cherry-picking bullshit, I'm not about to waste my time with a wilfull ignorant who can't even admit to a simple mistake.
Enjoy life...you are in for a big surprise when reality confronts you.
"For the LAST TIME - you took TWO quotes from TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS"
-
And for the nth time, the reason you dont see the contradiction is because you don't understand the premise that explosives capable of hurling steel around would probably destroy several blocks around it from the huge blast wave required. IE. IT WOULD BE A HUGE DETONATION.
-
And btw you have some cheek claiming I am incompetent and ignorant when YOU claimed a paper was a truther paper when it wasnt
Quote me! Never said it was a truther written paper...I said they post in respected journals all the time, and have published several peer-reviewed, published papers. YOU PICKED JEM, which happens to be a place where they POSTED responses.
You just twist words into whatever reality makes you correct?? Now i see why you have such a hard time accepting the blatant truths presented by these 1,550 pro's.
"Never said it was a truther written paper.I said they post in respected journals all the time, and have published several peer-reviewed, published papers. YOU PICKED JEM."
-
What the hell?? Your very first post to me listed various journals saying that truthers published there, one of them was Journal of Engineering Mechanics. It took me asking you 3 times to tell me what it was, then you gave me Bazants paper! What papers have truthers published in JEM???
"which happens to be a place where they POSTED responses"
-
OH I SEE!!! You believe a letter to the editior is the same as having a peer reviewed paper published in a journal. Oh dear, I am terribly sorry. Firstly, I finially get what you meant, and secondly no, it is not the same at all. Please learn how scientific journals work.
@TheSkepticalIdealist "OH I SEE!!! You believe a letter to the editior is the same as having a peer reviewed paper published in a journal."
Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Pathetic, deceptive. This conversation is over. I refuse to speak to liars.
"By falling debris"
Debris pieces, including column sections weighing several tonnes, don't "fall" 600 ft VERTICALLY, forming a 1200ft debris field, even from 110 stories...you fucking idiot! You deny reality!
Then please, stop playing stupid games and tell me WHAT PAPERS HAVE TRUTHERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS.
-
", don't "fall" 600 ft VERTICALLY,"
-
1. It did not fall vertically, some truthers dont know the difference between light aluminium cladding and heavy steel columns. 2. Explosives capable of hurling steel around would have taken out half of Lower Mantatter with its blast wave including any people in its radius.
@TheSkepticalIdealist "Then please, stop playing stupid games and tell me WHAT PAPERS HAVE TRUTHERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS."
Never said they PUBLISHED in that journal. They have RESPONDED to a published paper. The other journals I mentioned are where they PUBLISHED papers.
YOU are playing stupid! Look back through ym comments, never did I state that they published anything In JEM, i mentioned it because they refuted the collapse paper there, you fool..
The FIRST thing you said to me was.... "They have several unchallenged, peer reviewed, published papers in journals such as ... The Journal of Engineering Mechanics,. "...So yes you did, and several times after that when I asked you what they published. Now you say they "responded" to Bazant, then I tell you that a letter to the editior is completelty different and you claim Im putting words in your mouth, then you say it again!
"They ..RESPONDED to a published paper. The other journals..are where they PUBLISHED papers."-
-
As I said in my last comment you did not make that distinction, when I asked you what paper they published you eventually gave me a paper by Bazant, but when I told you Bazant was not a truther you claimed they merely "responded" to that paper. My premise was truthers have no papers published in any respected legitimate journals.That is still correct, THEY DON'T
@TheSkepticalIdealist "As I said in my last comment you did not make that distinction"
I am sorry that you assumed...your opinion of the journals in whicht heir unchallenged papers are published is just that, an opinion, and in no way shape or form does that refute the facts they present in these peer reviewed, published, unchallenged papers. If they are incorrect, why don;t you respond instead of hiding on youtube, isolating yourself from direct communication with these 1,550+ experts.
You prephased your claim by saying truthers have had papers published in journals like The Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I then asked you over and over what papers have truthers published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Now you're claiming that you never said they published anything in JEM, yes you did over and over.
-
I told you that they have zero papers published in any respected journals. That still stands, accept that and we'll move on
"your opinion of the journal..is just that, an opinion"
-
No, its a fact.
-
"If they are incorrect, why don;t you respond"
-
I'm happy to talk about the papers themselves so long as you admit that 1. you were wrong about claiming they had anything published in JEM. 2. that Bentham is not actually a respected journal and the other two journals you listed arent science journals and one is just a fringe conspiracy theorist news website. Accept that and we can move on.
WHICH THERE WAS! EVERY BUILDING IN THE WTC complex was destroyed! SEVERAL TONNE COLUMNS TRAVELED 600FT FROM THE TOWERS! CLEARLY THIS WAS GRAVITY/SPRINGING!!! CUZ STRUCTURAL STEEL SPRINGS YA KNOW? 1,200 FT DEBRIS RADIUS....PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR GRAVITY!!
"WHICH THERE WAS! EVERY BUILDING IN THE WTC complex was destroyed! "
-
By falling debris not by a huge blast wave.We have video of people practically beneath the towers you do not hear any booms, no detonations even equal to a normal demoltion, yet Gage claims it was so intense it hurled heavy steel around! You suffer the same problem as Gage does, you dont understand how loud explosives are and how loud and what characteristics one would have to do the things you say they did.
@veradinx - They also explain that, if true, it would be the first time in history for a fire to do this. Add to that established science like the temp structural steel melts at (between 25 and 2700 degrees Fahrenheit) to the maximum temperatures exerted by fires caused either by debris or jet fuel (around 1500-1700 degrees F) and you have a recipe for a question:
If the fire could not be hot enough to melt steel and NIST admits it is unlikely, then why defend such an erroneous claim?
"explosives were heard by MANY people and on tape,"
-
ExploSIONS were heard, fully expected in building fires and people use the word all the time to describe things that arent explosives. Explosives were not at all caught on tape, there are zero detonations going off in all of the collapses when all this steel flinging is meant to be happening. Thermite isnt loud, but Gage apparently thinks it can hurl steel around, which is shown in the video.
Your claim that they have no published papers in respected journals is completely false.
They have several unchallenged, peer reviewed, published papers in journals such as "The Open Chemical Physics Journal", "The Open Civil Engineering Journal", "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics", "The Environmentalist", "Foreign Policy Journal"...
"in journals such as "The Open Chemical Physics Journal", "The Open Civil Engineering Journal", "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics", "The Environmentalist", "Foreign Policy Journal"..."
-
The only respected journal here (some of these arent even real journals) is Journal of Engineering Mechanics, . What papers have truthers published in JEM?
Which of these aren't real? I've read all of them myself. Need links?
As far as none being "respected", that seems to be your opinion. I'm not sure what that has to do with science...or the events of 9/11. If someone publishes a peer reviewed paper in a "non respected" journal, what is stopping you from refuting the paper?
Facts are facts, whether you respect the place which they are published is irrelevant to the debate.
""The Open" ones are Bentham, they run real journals but they are not all well respected and its easy to find out where editors have quit in protest to terrible/dodgy quality standards, where scientists/engineers/doctors etc are upset when they are spammed to become editors of journals in subejcts they arent even qualified in. "Foreign Policy Journal" calls iself a journal but is just a conspiracy theorist news outlet. --(continued in next comment)
The Environmentalist is also not well respected and in order to publish you need to spent several thousand dollars. Even Benthan, also Open Access, only charges about $600. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a real journal, as I said last time. Please tell me what papers truthers have published in that journal?
@TheSkepticalIdealist And please remember why that paper was mentioned, because you initially stated they publish nothing, not because I claim it contains a smoking gun. We can get into that article if you'd like, but let's finish the discussion regarding this video, which is the reason i am here/the reason we are speaking.
I just want you to realize that sometimes you could be wrong, which you were in stating they publish nothing in respectable journals. We all make mistakes man.
No I didnt, I said they have never had anything in any legitmiate respected journals. You then referenced 4 journals, only 2 were science/engineering journals and only 1 was a respected legitmate journal for reasons I have touched on before. As I have asked 3 times now I want to know what paper you claim was published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
@TheSkepticalIdealist So- back to the original argument(this video of yours) - Gage is initially talking about the period of time from plane impact to onset of collapse, you'd want the least amount of explosions to be heard while weakening the steel quietly with thermate.
Once collapse begins (when the beams are being flung) high explosives would be less audible, and probably required as you stated.
You simply took a quote out of context to make Gage contradict himself....how honest of you.
"you'd want the least amount of explosions to be heard while weakening the steel "
-
Yes, I get that. But then he claims super intense explosives hurled the steel hundreds of feet away. Why would it matter if the weakening was done quietly if you're going to have explosives hurling steel around later?
@TheSkepticalIdealist "Why would it matter if the weakening was done quietly if you're going to have explosives hurling steel around later?"
They tried to hide it as much as possible and failed. There was no way to not hurl steel in a 1200ft diameter, but they tried to hide as much of it as they could by using thermate to weaken the structure. You can see molten iron/steel flowing out of the building minutes up to the collapse.
No it doesn't. The only reason you can't see a contradiction is because you too under the mistaken beleif that the sound we heard of the collapses is what we would expect from explosives hurling heavy steel around. Go watch some REAL demolitions, they are not powerful or intended to be powerful enough hurl heavy steel around and yet they are deafening and clearly picked up on video, then go watch other videos of high explosives set off.
@TheSkepticalIdealist (continued) and the only point left is the "contradiction" Gage made, but if you understand my first point there, you should see that Gage is talking about two time periods here, the weakening leading up to the onset of collapse, and second, from the onset of collapse to completion of collapse (the time when high explosives would be necessary, the time when steel starts being flung 600ft horizontally).
You were comparing two quotes from two different "contexts" if you will
Denial? You said AE911TRUTH have never published anything in respected journals, you then yourself stated "JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant" and I gave you the name of the paper they published...
Why can't you simply admit you were wrong about that? It doesn't mean you are wrong about everything else man, I'm being fair to you, so please be honest with me.
"you then yourself stated "JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant" and I gave you the name of the paper they published..."
-
UUUH, excuse me but unless I missed it I have asked you 3 time (this time being the 4th) what truthers have published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics. So can you answer me please?
@TheSkepticalIdealist ""UUUH, excuse me but unless I missed it I have asked you 3 time (this time being the 4th) what truthers have published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics. So can you answer me please?""
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse". I said that 4 hours ago............
You are a classic example of a wilfull ignorant who will not admit when he is incorrect. Sad that this discussion over 9/11 has become more about you being correct than what actually occurred on 9/11.
"You are a classic example of a wilfull ignorant who will not admit when he is incorrect."
-
Uh huh... well when you realise that the Bazant paper is not actually written by a truther like you claimed and doesnt support truthers in any way, it will be interesting to see how you react.
@TheSkepticalIdealist "well when you realise that the Bazant paper is not actually written by a truther like you claimed and doesnt support truthers in any way, it will be interesting to see how you react"
Read it in it's entirely, you incredibly IGNORANT FOOL. READ THEIR RESPONSES. Jesus Christ man, do you need your hand held through everything?
@TheSkepticalIdealist You are talking about this paper, and my reaction to it, as if I've never seen it before, or as if i beleive it contains some sort of evidence, WHICH I STATED 4 FUCKING HOURS AGO, THAT IT DOESNT!!!
It is simply showing you that, unlike your previous statement, members of AE911TRUTH DO POST IN RESPECTED JOURNALS!
AS IF THE PLACE IN WHICH THEY PUBLISH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS THEY PRESENT.
Wow, thats amazing. You come here claiming that truthers have published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, you call me ignorant and incompetent for not knowing then you tell me the name of the paper. Except this paper was NOT written by a truther, it discusses the OPPOSITE of what truthers claim and truthers have long claimed the author is a shill (or something). AE911 do NOT post in respected journals, they have not published in JEM like you claimed. CAPS DOESNT HELP.
"It is simply showing you that, unlike your previous statement, members of AE911TRUTH DO POST IN RESPECTED JOURNALS!"!
-
Amazingly you still do not understand that the paper you referenced is NOT WRITTEN BY A TRUTHER and supports progressive collapse BY FIRE, which as far as I know is the complete opposite of what truthers claim. So... Bazant is not a truther, doesnt support truthers and doesnt believe what they do, so how is his paper show that truthers have stuff in JEM? o_O
"I gave you the name of the paper they published..."
-
And I just had to go back to this briefly. You just now claimed you never claimed that you said they published any papers in JEM, when that was the first thing you said to me, but later on you were still saying it. You even said that the Bazant paper WAS the paper they published in JEM (see quote above). I am happy to talk to you civilly you but please at least do me the courtesy of not denying your own words!
@TheSkepticalIdealist Wrong, I said they published peer reviewed papers in several open journals, which I listed. I did not specifically state that they published their own article at JEM, the reason JEM was mentioned is because they RESPONDED to /REFUTED a published article at JEM regarding natural collapse progression.
You ASSUMED. Instead of simply admiting that, you feel the need to split hairs and turn this into an argument...while evading the 9/11 points..
-"I did not specifically state that they published their own article at JEM, "
-
DIRECT QUOTE:
"Denial? You said AE911TRUTH have never published anything in respected journals, you then yourself stated "JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant" and I gave you the name of the paper they published..."
-
"the reason JEM was mentioned is because they RESPONDED"
-
So whats the relevance? letters to editors are not peer reviewed, as I said before.
"I said they published peer reviewed papers in several open journals, which I listed"
-
Except, as I said, ONLY ONE is a science journal, the other is not respected or a science journal and the other is not a journal at all and just a fringe conspiracy theorist news website that simply has "journal" in the title. If you want to talk about the respectabilty of Bentham we can do that, if you want.
"Hey kids, Believe thousand of EXPERTS or uneducated trolls on u-tube ?"
-
Except your AE911 group are a tiny fringe irrelevant group of nobodies that no one in the professional world cares about, with zero papers in any respectable journals despite plenty of commentary about 911 and research published about it. Just in the US alone around 17,000 new engineers enter the workforce every year. But Gage also includes the whole world +.computer programmers and architects. Fail
No question or doubt that these buildings were blown up. There are way too many different strands of evidence all pointing to the same terrible conclusion: pre-planted explosives.
Didn't you watch the video? Truthers believe in impossible explosives that cannot exist even in theory and exhibit no characteristics of an actual high explosive.
I'm sure you mean well by making this video but there are videos here on YouTube that show thermite *under pressure* slicing through steel beams.
under pressure is the key. The iron spheres found in the dust prove beyond any doubt that thermite was used. I know it's uncomfortable but you simply can't run away from that fact.
How does an incendiary PROPEL steel beams? You didn't read the annotations or listen to Gage properly, did you? Gage thinks you can fling steel beams around QUIETLY.
-
"he iron spheres found in the dust"-
-
Fly ash used in concrete have iron microspheres in them, why do you think the RJ Lee Group report said they were expected to be there?
@vidmanx0 It wasn't the smaller portion destroying the bigger portion (if you look at it like that, it is impossible).
It was the smaller portion crashing down on the exterior columns which caused many to be flung out to the side in elastic effect (rubber band like), and concrete floors were being pulverized almost one by one as the top portion of the building smashed through close to all of the concrete floors on it's way down. This makes sense, for some reason the AE911 guys can't grasp this.
@theBartone9119 That's where the acceleration during during collapse is key. If what you are describing took place, there would be a dramatic deceleration as the floors were pulverized. Instead, the acceleration during collapse is indistinguishable from freefall acceleration. This is simply not possible unless there is no resistance at all. Basic physics. Whenever you mention this to a physicist that hasn't studied 9/11, it certainly gets their attention.
@vidmanx0 Totally disagree. The reaction when the weight above the weakened area collapses down at the weakened area then just continues downward in sequence. It actually makes perfect sense from a physics standpoint. Symmetrical building with no Interior Space columns. And the collapse was not at freefall acceleration, it was much slower. Just watch any video and you can see free falling debris 30-40 stories ahead of the collapse, and moving much faster.
@atamalakolive No interior space columns?? Take another look at the building plans. The twin towers had many MASSIVE steel core columns.
I'm afraid you're wrong about the acceleration. David Chandler's videos here on YouTube show how you can disprove your claim using physics toolkit video analysis software.
@vidmanx0 The Interior Space is the area between Core and Perimeter. It was spanned by floor trusses only. There were NO Interior Space columns from grade to roof., and the Interior Space is what collapsed first. These were very lightweight buildings (8 PCF as compared to say Empire State Building at 32 PCF). Tube in tube also enabled them to use 40$ less structural steel. They were symmetrical tube in tube construction, the only two of their kind in the world.
@vidmanx0 Chanlder's video states that the building fell in 11 seconds, which is not true. Search for videos showing it was in NO way at free fall. They show the complete collapse, not the partial one Chandler shows. Also Chandler assumes that the entire body below acts as one, which is absurd, The entire building did not collapse at once, it was a sequence. And with more weight above as the collapse moved downward, any slight acceleration is no surprise. Force=Mass x Acceleration. Basic
HEY GENIUS, Im still waiting for you to tell me how an incendiary can propel steel beams around. You just plan on ignoring all questions you don't like?
@TheSkepticalIdealist The speed of energy release of a thermite reaction is based on the surface area. The smaller the particles, the greater the surface area. That's why it is referred to as nano-thermite.
It sounds like you've done very little research on this matter.
"The speed of energy release of a thermite reaction is based on the surface area. The smaller the particles, the greater the surface area. That's why it is referred to as nano-thermite."
-
And that translates into? If nano thermite is explosive and can propel steel around, then its loud, if its an incendiary, then its quiet but can't propel steel around. Seems like you still don't understand how explosives or sound works.
@TheSkepticalIdealist That's why some people suspect that both regular thermite was used for all of the pre-cuts and nano-thermite after the onset of collapse when people DID hear loud explosions. The bottom line is that vast quantities of thermite were found that shouldn't have been there. There's still a lot debunkers running around claiming that thermite can't slice steel which is not surprising given the kindergarten antics of the BBC and National Geographic in their thermite "experiments"
Good god how can you not get this? There were no explosive detonations, we know this because we have various videos of the collapses, some practically beneath and you can't hear any, not even small shaoed charges, the sound of which would be nowhere near the amount required to FLING STEEL AROUND. If an explosive is flinging steel around it has to be loud, there were no explosions, therefore there were no explosives flinging steel around.
@TheSkepticalIdealist OK, now you're just being intellectually dishonest. The number of eyewitness accounts and video evidence for explosions is overwhelming. Just search YouTube for 9/11 explosions.
"The number of eyewitness accounts and video evidence for explosions is overwhelming."-
-
Explosions are fullt expected in building fires, what we dont have is any evidence of explosive detonations even on the level of severing columns with a shaped charge, let alone the amount of energy required to FLING STEEL HUNDREDS OF FEET. We have great video of the collapes that would have picked up these detonations, we dont hear any, therefore they didnt and couldn't have happened
@TheSkepticalIdealist Well, the videos show that steel was flung hundreds of feet at impossible velocity for gravitational collapse alone.
I don't understand why you keep saying that "We don't hear any". It seems like you've watched one video from ground level where the sound is reverberating all throughout the buildings into a muddy mess and made up your mind based on that.
"I don't understand why you keep saying that "We don't hear any". "
-
Its quite simple. In a normal demolition a shaped charge is picked up miles away. Just go watch some demolitions, even small ones, all easily picked up on a recorder. Thats because explosives are VERY loud. On 911 all we have is a progressive rumble getting louder as it progresses towward the ground, yet you guys claim absurdly huge explosives went off capable of flinging huge steel around. Watch the damn video!
@theBartone9119 That's a lie. The only mention of paint that I've heard is from retarded debunkers who claimed that the incredibly energetic and zinc-free red/gray chips were primer paint - even thought their chemical composition beared no resemblance to any paint ever created by man.
"That's a lie. The only mention of paint that I've heard is from retarded debunkers"
-
No its not a lie though i wouldn't necessarily say Gage thinks it was painted on Steven Jones has definitely said various things about how nano thermite was used. Right now before you reply go watch the Jesse Ventura 911 episode of his ConspiracyTheory show. Before the nano thermite test with Van Romero Jones claims it was mixed with paint because he thinks that turns it into a "high explosive"
{continued...) And Im still waiting for you to tell me how an incendiary can propel steel beams around and why iron microspheres are strange seeing as there's plenty of other sources bescides thermite.
@TheSkepticalIdealist The speed of a thermite reaction is greatly dependent upon the surface area of the particles. At a nano scale, thermite *does* effectively become explosive. This has been talked about extensively and I'm really shocked that you're not aware of it.
The debunkers claim that iron micropheres are present in certain types of concrete. That may well be true but I've seen no evidence to back up that concrete can contain the types of spheres found in the WTC dust.
"At a nano scale, thermite *does* effectively become explosive. This has been talked about extensively and I'm really shocked that you're not aware of it."
-
1. nano thermite is an incendiary, all applications involve its use as an incendiary and adding to actual explosives.
2. if nano thermite were explosiuve it still cant propel heavy steel around any more quietly than a regular explosive, because sound waves is the blast wave which is the energy.
Why do you think the RJLee Group recognised the microspheres but said they were expected? Are they just idiots? Iron microspheres are common in fly ash used in concrete, yes. Why didn't Jones test WTC concrete as a control? But Jones has claimed plenty more elements indicat thermite that are entirely expected in the dust, even reports of molten metal and steel are TOTALLY unremarkable yet thats what his original thermite claims were based on in the first place.
Re: Your video: WOW some crazy asshat that doesn't understand what voluntary compliance means in reference to income tax or that Nick Rockefeller he claims told him all this is not related to THE Rockerfeller of the famous banking dynasty or at least so far removed its not even worth thinking about. Zeitgeist used the same clip for its failed predictions, now you try use it again.
i'm still wondering when you're going to tell me what kinds of explosives are so intense they can blast heavy steel outwards 600 feet away from the WTC but not be picked up on camera and be so quiet they are drowned out by the collapsing building, For an "explosives expert" its amazing how little you've tried to expand on your claims.
@TheSkepticalIdealist Last post as you are a thick headed moron who forgets what ever he wants to. *I* never said thermite was used to "fling steel", you did. Thermite was used for the precuts. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Second, I never said the FDNY wass involved, YOU DID, go back and re-read the posts.
It's easy to see how morons like you ARE SOOO WILLING to swallow anything that is fed to them. As I said, don't come crying to me when they want you implant an RFID chip in your ass!
"*I* never said thermite was used to "fling steel", you did."-
-
Yes, you did. You claimed thermite somehow makes it quieter, the topic of the video has Gage claiming that explosives SO HUGELY INTENSE they blasted out steel from the core HUNDREDS of feet away from the building. Normal demolitions don't even TRY and do that, yet are eaisly picked on any video. We have no videos capturing even normal demolition charges let alone the MASSIVE ones Gage claims were used.
You probabkly have no idea what RFID is capable of doing, just like you have no idea about any of this. Before RFID it was tatoo's, like Zeitgeist claiming that they would make microchips mandatory and of course that never happened, it also claimed it they would be able to track your every move. How and why would they log and sort that? Life is not a sci-fi movie. Your NWO always have these incomprehensibly pontless nonsensical plans.
@TheSkepticalIdealist I addressed every point but, you have blinders on or you are a moron. Your choice. You think what ever you want. Make little difference to me but a word of advice, get a vasectomy! I'd hate to think of you reproducing.
Who do you want to listen to? Gage or Les Robertson (The man who designed the towers..? and is a VERY classy esteemed professional). Les Robertson was on a radio show talking about all this lunatic nonsense CD. He said.."There is no way one floor can bear the weight of 14 or more floors landing on it..no way!!"
And that is exactly what took place at the WTC. The exterior columns finally failed and 30 floors were set free to land on ONE floor below.
Sigh.... there is silence before the explosions... there was the deafening roar of the falling buildings that mics could not decern. Human ears can I already EXPLAINED this! And I never claimed to be an explosives expert, not sure where got that from. I just happen to have a genius IQ and know a lot of shit and use common sense. You obviously cannot grasp simple sequence logic so I am done. YOU WIN! THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!! RUN! RUN HIDE IN YOU HOUSES Just don't come crying to me when.....
And then a progressive increasing rumble turning into a roar, where are the "explosions"?
-
". there was the deafening roar of the falling buildings that mics could not decern"-
-
Total rubbish, no other demolition has trouble picking up explosions on camera. None. People like Gage claim explosives MASSIVELY more intense than any normal demolition.
@TheSkepticalIdealist You are TOTALLY right on all of that. The CD thing is such a bunch of horseshit. The mathematics and sound analysis of this DOES NOT LIE and it can not be explained away. Show me the video tape of the towers burning..(Lots O those!!) then show me.. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.. COLLAPSE!! No one can. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Why? Because it never took place.
To claim this building is full of explosives and have PRO news cameras 800 feet away record NOTHING. Absurd
-"I just happen to have a genius IQ and know a lot of shit and use common sense"--
-
Oh I see, so you're just anothger lunatic. You';ve ignored every single point so far so you obviously don't want to discuss any of this. Why do truthers pretend to be an expert? Do they think I'm just going to accept whatever bullshit they claim because they say that? You claim to be an expert in explosives but have no idea how sound and explosives work. Good job.
3) This isn't a conventional demolition where everyone is standing around for quiet for the thrill of the building's collapse. 4) The sound taking out the core columns would have been muffled by the outside walls 5) You can SEE the squibs on every tape there is of the falling towers. 6) The precut with thermite would not have required HUGE explosions (see point 2)
But what really gets me is why you think the FDNY has to be involved? It makes more sense to NOT involve them.
"3) This isn't a conventional demolition where everyone is standing around for quiet for the thrill of the building's collapse."-
-
There's plenty of videos that would have caoptured these massive explosions had they been there. Look, normal demolitions are easily caught on camera, Just search for Landmark Implosion and you can see 3 different perspectives. Normal demoltioons charges are not power enough to fling steel around, yet are EASILY picked up.
"6) The precut with thermite would not have required HUGE explosions (see point 2)"-
-
How does thermite help propel steel around? Did you even watch this video?
-
"But what really gets me is why you think the FDNY has to be involved? It makes more sense to NOT involve them. "-
-
Maybe you can tell me why truthers never quote any of them about WTC7. We have dozens and dozens that have commentd about it, yet not a peep from truthers... Go on... guess...
I've explained that already. 1) You seem to think that they were quiet. Why do you think that? The FDNY on scene have spoken about hearing "pops" of explosions. 2) I've told you you will never hear explosive through the tremendous roar of the falling towers because condenser microphones are easily over loaded to distortion levels. It's VERY basic recording. What a simple example of this. Listen to the guy holding the camera speak while others are speaking away from it.
The only explosions that went off, were exactly where the digital "planes" hit. That's it. The WTC was a controlled underground nuclear demolition. 80% of the towers were turned to dust. That explains all the controversy with "planes" (no actual evidence) and all the confusion with how could 2 towers be entirely wired (they weren't). Watch Dimitri Khalezov's documentary interview / testimony to learn the truth. Need more? Radiation-related sicknesses are affecting the 9/11 Rescue Workers.
anthonyc31 1 month ago
@anthonyc31
-
Digital planes, nukes. Wow. Amazing how not even your fellow truthers take you seriously.
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 month ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist i don't give a flying fuck what you or what you think "fellow truthers" think about me ... the truth is available to to those that are looking for it. You, on the other hand, are free to continue believing the various bullshit stories floating around, including the biggest bullshit story of all called the 9/11 Commission Report. No planes hit the towers. 3 underground nuclear detonations took down WTC 1,2 and 7, and a missile hit the Pentagon.
anthonyc31 1 month ago
@anthonyc31
-
So why do you think that no one takes your crazy tale seriously and even most other truthers think you're nuts? That must suck to be you.
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 month ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist wait wait wait ... you forgot to include ridicule in your posts ... you posted the standard "crazy" comments just fine but you really need to add more ridicule to your posts otherwise your lame-ass attempt to discredit really lack the bite needed to ward off the curious onlookers, which is ultimately what you're gunning for. But go ahead, i'll let you course correct :)
anthonyc31 1 month ago
@anthonyc31
-
Curious onlookers? Anyone that takes digital planes any nuclear bombs on 911 seriously is not someone capable of coherent logical thought processes. That's why only a fringe minority of your fellow conspiracy theorists actually take you seriously, and truthers are a fringe minority to start with. I don't need to discredit you, because there are truthers extremely pissed off that you guys are making them look bad
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 month ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist i'm not sure the "crazy" angle is ultimately gonna hold up for you. As for the "truthers", i hope they get just as angry at fuckballs like you and the bigger fuckballs that continue to push the BS of "planes" hitting the towers. The fact that the alleged hijackers are still alive and well should have been a BIG fucking clue but some people are just dense. Watch the Dimitri Khalezov documentary interview and learn what happened on 9/11.
anthonyc31 1 month ago
@anthonyc31 @anthonyc31
-
See what I mean...The hijackers are not still alive and you have zero evidence that they are. If you actually look up who these "alive" hijackers are meant to be, they have different names, different bithdates, different families and they look different. Nearly a decade old retracted BBC news article is all you have. Why isnt the "you're crazy" angle going to "work" for me? Everyone thinks you're crazy even the majority of the truth movement which are fringe as it is.
TheSkepticalIdealist 1 month ago
You do not know anything either, and obviously you have not read anything. Quiet? Are you kidding? There is plenty of evidence of explosions in those buildings. There is so much evidence it is overwhelming. Do you have idea how many witnesses there are to explosions. Why don't you go on youtube and hear them for yourself, and listen to the people testifying about them. Again, you are just another person trying to plant false seeds in people's minds when they read these messages.
anastasia2657 2 months ago
@anastasia2657
-
"Quiet? Are you kidding? There is plenty of evidence of explosions in those buildings."
-
Sorry, no you're wrong. We expect peopel to report explosions in fires, its COMMON. Got that? Transformers exploding, blackdraft, fuel-air explosions, even steel breaking has been described as like bomb going off before. What you dont have is any explosions consistent with MASSIVE EXPLOSIVES flinging steel hundreds of feet away like Gage claims. Watch the video.
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "We expect peopel to report explosions in fires......" Is that the "royal We"? You say, "watch the video" (singular), but I say watch the numerous videos in which you can hear many explosions (explosions sounding exactly like controlled demolition (watch the numerous videos of controlled demolitionl) before the collapse and during the collapse. And then watch the numerous videos of people testifying about explosions, before and during the collapse. .
anastasia2657 2 months ago
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
You are obviously one of those people who do not read, and simply engage in presumptions. Of course they made tests. You obviously have not read their papers. And why would you presume this is a "crappy" journal. What a word! What nerve you have. All of these men who have started this journal have impeccable credentials. You don't know what you are talking about. You have not read anything; and you know nothing. You are simply trying to plant false seeds
anastasia2657 2 months ago
@anastasia2657
-
" Of course they made tests."-
-
But not ones that would give definitive conclusions. they even say it isnt thermite because it gives out too much energy, but then say it has to be super thermite! They didnt even test in an oxygen free environment. Bet you dont know why that matters.
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
@anastasia2657
-
continued...
-
""And why would you presume this is a "crappy" journal. "
-
Uh, because the the editor quit never seeing the paper? They have accepted faked papers, and more editors have quit. They even spam scientists to become editors of journals in subjects they arent even qualified in. It is not a legitimate respected journal, sorry.
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
Firstly, there is proof that thermate was used because the scientists found unexploded thermate, and it is not one scientist but many. That is a given. And because they FOUND thermate, does not exclude that other explosives were used. Finding that they used thermate does not exclude other explosives, and that is their position. Furthermore, they have said that this nano-thermate that was used has explosive characteristics. This was not ordinary thermate. It was high-tech nano thermate.
anastasia2657 2 months ago
@anastasia2657
-
" the scientists found unexploded thermate,"
-
Firstly, they do not even claim to have found thermate. Its "nano thermite". Second, they did nothing of the kind and their own data shows it cannot be thermite, they just claim it must be soopadoopa thermite but they wont do any tests to definitely confirm that, they didnt even test in an oxygen free enviroment. They then published in crappy journal known for their terrible standards where the editor quit saying she never saw it
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
@anastasia2657
-
{continued}
-
And btw how does this relate to this video? How do you defend Richard Gage claiming that huge massive explosives flung heavy steel hundreds of feet yet was so quiet it wasnt picked up on any video?
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
It's a great way to defeat him. Simply edit what he is saying, and put words in his mouth. Great Work!! Good job!
anastasia2657 2 months ago
@anastasia2657
-
"Simply edit what he is saying, and put words in his mouth. "
-
Prove it. Other truthers have claimed I have quoted him out of context and then went ahead and claimed the same thing i said Gage was claiming. So you gonna tell me how to put Gage's words in context that make sense?
TheSkepticalIdealist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More gibberish from the "911 debunkers".
15% of a top structure cannot destroy 85% of a bottom structure via a gravity collapse. It's an impossibility. It defies fundamental physics. There is no experiment or example on earth that can replicate that ridiculous theory.
The most probable and obvious explanation is controlled demolition. It fits all of the available evidence
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago
Inside/outside job (USA/ISRAEL).
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More gibberish from the "911 debunkers".
15% of a top structure cannot destroy 85% of a bottom structure via a gravity collapse. It's an impossibility. It defies fundamental physics. There is no experiment or example on earth that can replicate that ridiculous theory.
The most probable and obvious explanation is controlled demolition. It fits all of the available evidence.
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago
so whats ur point of this video... that ur good at believing of what ur goverment says?.... hahahaahahah jack ass... everything points to an inside job jackass
zelenko2 4 months ago
@zelenko2
-
if you're 26 as your profile says, why do you act like a 13 year old ? maybe thats your mental age and why you believe such stupid things.
TheSkepticalIdealist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist well... when ur a child - ur told what to do... when ur grown up - u think with ur head.... its ur choice what u wanna be... may god help u
zelenko2 3 months ago
@zelenko2
-
Just debunked yourself with that one comment. Good job. Everyone can see who you are.
TheSkepticalIdealist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist ur a goverment follower... i think ur debunked :S
zelenko2 3 months ago
@zelenko2
-
I dont care what the government says. You guys are a small fringe minority, no one cares about any of you. Look at the Occupy movements, the London Riots, etc,... how many people are talking about 911?? AE911 are an irrelevant fringe bunch of incompetent nobodies that havent published or even tried to publish a single paper about 911 in a reputable journal despite hundreds of papers and plenty of discussion about it in the science and engineering world.
TheSkepticalIdealist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist 911 was staged by usa... period...
zelenko2 3 months ago
@zelenko2
-
Just keep repeating your faith over and over, thats all you can do. Meanwhile the world cares about more important things and your kind fade more and more into obscurity.
TheSkepticalIdealist 3 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist The 911 "TM" is like a 3 card monty street game. There is always a ready made "Theory" ready to be flopped down where they need it.
roquefortfiles 3 months ago
Scientific observation, experience, and commonsense rule out the beliefs that nano-thermite/mate and gravity could have turned the Twin Towers into dust, or that office fires and gravity could have turned the Twin Towers into dust.
Alex Jones is only one of many popular alternative deceivers.
Energy is infinite. This is the secret the controllers don't want out, but the September 11 False Flag and Creation itself are evidence that energy is infinite. That means of control is coming to an end.
onefodderunit 4 months ago
@bd886 I know those architects and engineers simply signed a petition calling for another investigation, but I think it's okay to pretend that they actually did some actual analysis (even though they didn't!) and it's fine to suggest that there were civil engineers even though there were hardly any. Psst! Don't tell the debunkers that hardly any of the petition signers have any expertise in structural engineering materials engineering, fire protection engineering, or forensic engineering!
13falls123 4 months ago
I love the photo! Is this why Chris Mohr used boxes as props in his series rebutting Gage? We can only wonder! =D
Go here to see: /watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
well done. gage is a fucking idiot, why so many retards claim him to be an 'expert' in controlled demolition and structural engineering is beyond me
cjnewson88 5 months ago 2
@Quedorf they would say who cares your, way of thinking the fact is that they did, it.
warlord2080 5 months ago
@warlord2080 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What's your evidence?
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
I simply ask this. If it were a CD, then why did the "government" fly planes into the building. Why not just simplify the whole event, and use explosives to take down the towers, and then claim the terrorists used explosives. And secondly, why did the collapse begin precisely at the floor the planes hit? Good planning there by the culprits. To hit the proper floors that were rigged to start the collapse.
quedorf 5 months ago
@quedorf I had a troofer answer that one by declaring that explosive charges were placed on every single structural column on every single floor above the 20th floor in both towers!! =D
126 columns per floor x 90 floors x 2 buildings = 22,680 charges!!1!!
ROTFLMAO!! =D
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@Elxchupacabra07 I use the previous evidence that they provide to show that it does not work. All evidence has to match up with the ct's witnesses this also includes the news witness which they do not understand figure of speech. I pointed at richard gage silent thermite as a contradiction. this also includes nano thermite aka thermite paint.
warlord2080 5 months ago
Also I have to point out that If your thermite stuff were silent it would kill willy rodriguez's story in fact thermite theory would destroy it~_~
warlord2080 5 months ago
@warlord2080 And here I thought it had already been destroyed by the fact that nobody in the office and basement with him heard the impacts. They all heard the freight elevator crashing, though!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
So richard gage was going on about controlled demolitions like explosives but then later he switched to thermite. As theskepticalidealist is pointing out termite is an incendary it has no way of exploding like a demolition charge to hurl beams and be silent at the same time. as far as I am aware thermite has never been used in a CD ever.
warlord2080 5 months ago
@warlord2080 I dont think anybody, including twoofers, understand what kind of a living richard gage has made off of his claims. Twoofers think that "OH hes just coming out and disproving the stupid gubmit" when actually, he followed along with Dylan Avery Luke Rudowski and Alex Jones that all made a MASSIVE amount of money from the "Truth" movement. This is why they get so pissed off when you tell them they're wrong, or ignore the answer to their questions. Theyre protecting their investments
ElxxChupacabra07 5 months ago 2
@ElxxChupacabra07 Amen!
“Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced.” -- H.L. Mencken
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
@Theskepticalidealist they did published in the bentham open, but it has been scrutinized and one of the publishers resigned because she did not know and they sneak this paper in the journal.
warlord2080 5 months ago
@warlord2080
-
Not just one editor, multiple editors have resigned over the shoddy qualify of Bentham. Just because a paper is published in a good journal doesnt mean its true of course, but it says something about the basic standards achieved. before this Bentham paper they all hated peer review, because of course none of them had any papers published in any mainstream journals apart from their own fake one, then with Bentham suddenly they cant stop talking about this peer reviewed paper.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
"Explosives capable of hurling steel around would have taken out half of Lower Mantatter with its blast wave including any people in its radius."
The debris field, as I have already mentioned several times, was ~1200ft for each tower, according to every single report I've read, official or alternative.
Gravitational collapse cannot account for several tonne colo\umn sections travelling this far vertically...but you seem content evading this point.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"The debris field, as I have already mentioned several times, was"
-
You clearly have no idea how explosives work. 110 story skyscrapers collapsing is going to create a large debris field. High explosives however work by supersonic BLAST WAVES. If you don't have blast waves you have NO POWER in the explosive. Without a blast wave you have no sound, without sound you have no blast wave. A blast wave IS sound. In a high explosive blast you can LITERALLY SEE THE BLAST WAVE.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "110 story skyscrapers collapsing is going to create a large debris field"
No shit, sherlock! You completely evaded the point! Gravitational collapses do not hurl several tonne column sections 600ft horizontally - physically impossible - do you not the the colums sections embedded in the buildings 600ft away? Gravity cannot cause this, and still does not spring...
"In a high explosive blast you can LITERALLY SEE THE BLAST WAVE."
Exactly what we see in all videos
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"No shit, sherlock! You completely evaded the point! "
-
No, you evaded the point. We can talk about what caused the effect so long as you first realise that explosives simply cannot account for it. We do not see any blast waves in any videos, we do not hear any detonations from any explosives. In REAL high explosives you can see a blast wave, huge sound, air literally condenses. Go look up a video by vsauce called "BIGGEST EXPLOSIONS" and see what real high explosives look like.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
Richard Gage simply has a better life as a conspiracy nutjob.
He could barely afford an apartment in San Francisco as a BAD
pool architect. Now he can travel, and NEVER go to work.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Merlin5by5 5 months ago
This entire video is cherry picked quotes taken out of context.
Gage is initially explaining why you'd use thermite/thermate instead of solely c4, because the thermite could be used to weaken the building slowly and quietly until it began to collapse, the collapse hiding the sounds/sights of sequential high explosives (which can still be clearly heard, and were reported by witnesses up to 5 blocks away.)
Gage does not say thermite exclusively...he did not rule out high exp How pathetic...
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
".he did not rule out high exp How pathetic..."
-
Whats pathetic is that you clearly didnt understand or read my annotations. The bottom line is that Gage is the one claiming that heavy steel was hurled around by intense explosives. When told that this would be loud and that no such detonations were recorded when this was supposed to be happening, he responds saying thats why they would have used thermite because its quieter. POINT: If its quiet it cant hurl steel anywhere.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "POINT: If its quiet it cant hurl steel anywhere. "
Exactly - you are making a point about noise using quotes from Richard talking about the PERIOD OF TIME when thermite would be used. NOT the ENTIRE timeframe, but UP TO the point of collapse.
You then take a quote, from later on (as your annotations even state) to make him contradict himself regarding noise, when in fact he is THEN talking about the period from collapse onward.
Do you see what I am saying?
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"Do you see what I am saying?"-
-
Not really the fact is Richard Gage claims super high explosives hurled heavy steel around. As the caller noted we didnt hear any such detonations. Gage then says thats why they would have used thermite because its quieter. No matter how he thinks thermite works doesnt really matter, the main issue is that Gage claims massively intense high explosives went off but doesnt understand what the characteristics of high powered explosives are.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
And unless I wasnt clear enough, only Betham and JEM are science journals anyway. JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant, I assume since you dodged the question last time that you wont be telling he what truthers have published there.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist Sigh, so instead of 9/11, and the information contained in the peer reviewed published papers that we are talking about, you wish to talk about the legitimacy of the PLACE where these papers are?
As if the PLACE where these papers are published in any way shape or form refutes the facts within?
That's what I'd call willful ignorance.
"since you dodged the question last time "
You honestly too incompetent to google it yourself?
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse"
99Eternal 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist Sigh, so instead of 9/11, and the information contained in the peer reviewed published papers that we are talking about, you wish to talk about the legitimacy of the PLACE where these papers are?
As if the PLACE where these papers are published in any way shape or form refutes the facts within?
That's what I'd call willful ignorance.
"since you dodged the question last time "
You honestly too incompetent to google it yourself?
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse".
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-#
"You honestly too incompetent to google it yourself?
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse"."
-
Ok I missed this as it was listed as spam for some reason.. This is not a truther paper, its a paper that truthers hate because it talks about progressive colalpse from fire by Bazant which truthers think is in on it or something. .... At any rate, I am confused as to why you believe this is a truther paper. o_O
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticalIdealist "The only reason you can't see a contradiction is because you too under the mistaken beleif that the sound we heard of the collapses is what we would expect from explosives hurling heavy steel around."
It doesn't matter if the sound we heard was explosives or natural collapse. That in no way shape or form has anything to do with the point I am making, and you are smart enough to know that. Don't play stupid.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist For the LAST TIME - you took TWO quotes from TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS ie PERIODS OF TIME IN WHICH SOMEONE WAS REFERRING TO, AND PLACED THEM SIDE BY SIDE MAKING THEM APPEAR AS A CONTRADICTION.
Honestly man, that is some low-level dishonesty cherry-picking bullshit, I'm not about to waste my time with a wilfull ignorant who can't even admit to a simple mistake.
Enjoy life...you are in for a big surprise when reality confronts you.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"For the LAST TIME - you took TWO quotes from TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS"
-
And for the nth time, the reason you dont see the contradiction is because you don't understand the premise that explosives capable of hurling steel around would probably destroy several blocks around it from the huge blast wave required. IE. IT WOULD BE A HUGE DETONATION.
-
And btw you have some cheek claiming I am incompetent and ignorant when YOU claimed a paper was a truther paper when it wasnt
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "when YOU claimed a paper was a truther paper when it wasnt"
Quote me! Never said it was a truther written paper...I said they post in respected journals all the time, and have published several peer-reviewed, published papers. YOU PICKED JEM, which happens to be a place where they POSTED responses.
You just twist words into whatever reality makes you correct?? Now i see why you have such a hard time accepting the blatant truths presented by these 1,550 pro's.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"Never said it was a truther written paper.I said they post in respected journals all the time, and have published several peer-reviewed, published papers. YOU PICKED JEM."
-
What the hell?? Your very first post to me listed various journals saying that truthers published there, one of them was Journal of Engineering Mechanics. It took me asking you 3 times to tell me what it was, then you gave me Bazants paper! What papers have truthers published in JEM???
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"which happens to be a place where they POSTED responses"
-
OH I SEE!!! You believe a letter to the editior is the same as having a peer reviewed paper published in a journal. Oh dear, I am terribly sorry. Firstly, I finially get what you meant, and secondly no, it is not the same at all. Please learn how scientific journals work.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "OH I SEE!!! You believe a letter to the editior is the same as having a peer reviewed paper published in a journal."
Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Pathetic, deceptive. This conversation is over. I refuse to speak to liars.
"By falling debris"
Debris pieces, including column sections weighing several tonnes, don't "fall" 600 ft VERTICALLY, forming a 1200ft debris field, even from 110 stories...you fucking idiot! You deny reality!
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"Now you are just putting words in my mouth"
-
Then please, stop playing stupid games and tell me WHAT PAPERS HAVE TRUTHERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS.
-
", don't "fall" 600 ft VERTICALLY,"
-
1. It did not fall vertically, some truthers dont know the difference between light aluminium cladding and heavy steel columns. 2. Explosives capable of hurling steel around would have taken out half of Lower Mantatter with its blast wave including any people in its radius.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "Then please, stop playing stupid games and tell me WHAT PAPERS HAVE TRUTHERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS."
Never said they PUBLISHED in that journal. They have RESPONDED to a published paper. The other journals I mentioned are where they PUBLISHED papers.
YOU are playing stupid! Look back through ym comments, never did I state that they published anything In JEM, i mentioned it because they refuted the collapse paper there, you fool..
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"Never said they PUBLISHED in that journal. "
-
The FIRST thing you said to me was.... "They have several unchallenged, peer reviewed, published papers in journals such as ... The Journal of Engineering Mechanics,. "...So yes you did, and several times after that when I asked you what they published. Now you say they "responded" to Bazant, then I tell you that a letter to the editior is completelty different and you claim Im putting words in your mouth, then you say it again!
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
(continued...)
-
"They ..RESPONDED to a published paper. The other journals..are where they PUBLISHED papers."-
-
As I said in my last comment you did not make that distinction, when I asked you what paper they published you eventually gave me a paper by Bazant, but when I told you Bazant was not a truther you claimed they merely "responded" to that paper. My premise was truthers have no papers published in any respected legitimate journals.That is still correct, THEY DON'T
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "As I said in my last comment you did not make that distinction"
I am sorry that you assumed...your opinion of the journals in whicht heir unchallenged papers are published is just that, an opinion, and in no way shape or form does that refute the facts they present in these peer reviewed, published, unchallenged papers. If they are incorrect, why don;t you respond instead of hiding on youtube, isolating yourself from direct communication with these 1,550+ experts.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"I am sorry that you assumed"
-
You prephased your claim by saying truthers have had papers published in journals like The Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I then asked you over and over what papers have truthers published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Now you're claiming that you never said they published anything in JEM, yes you did over and over.
-
I told you that they have zero papers published in any respected journals. That still stands, accept that and we'll move on
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
(continued..._
"your opinion of the journal..is just that, an opinion"
-
No, its a fact.
-
"If they are incorrect, why don;t you respond"
-
I'm happy to talk about the papers themselves so long as you admit that 1. you were wrong about claiming they had anything published in JEM. 2. that Bentham is not actually a respected journal and the other two journals you listed arent science journals and one is just a fringe conspiracy theorist news website. Accept that and we can move on.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "IE. IT WOULD BE A HUGE DETONATION."
WHICH THERE WAS! EVERY BUILDING IN THE WTC complex was destroyed! SEVERAL TONNE COLUMNS TRAVELED 600FT FROM THE TOWERS! CLEARLY THIS WAS GRAVITY/SPRINGING!!! CUZ STRUCTURAL STEEL SPRINGS YA KNOW? 1,200 FT DEBRIS RADIUS....PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR GRAVITY!!
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"WHICH THERE WAS! EVERY BUILDING IN THE WTC complex was destroyed! "
-
By falling debris not by a huge blast wave.We have video of people practically beneath the towers you do not hear any booms, no detonations even equal to a normal demoltion, yet Gage claims it was so intense it hurled heavy steel around! You suffer the same problem as Gage does, you dont understand how loud explosives are and how loud and what characteristics one would have to do the things you say they did.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist - NIST's own report of Tower 7 stated that the possibility of it having collapsed from fire was highly unlikely. Will that do?
veradinx 5 months ago
@veradinx - They also explain that, if true, it would be the first time in history for a fire to do this. Add to that established science like the temp structural steel melts at (between 25 and 2700 degrees Fahrenheit) to the maximum temperatures exerted by fires caused either by debris or jet fuel (around 1500-1700 degrees F) and you have a recipe for a question:
If the fire could not be hot enough to melt steel and NIST admits it is unlikely, then why defend such an erroneous claim?
veradinx 5 months ago
@veradinx
-
"If the fire could not be hot enough to melt steel and NIST admits it is unlikely, then why defend such an erroneous claim?
"-
Where does NIST say that fire melted the steel?
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@veradinx
-
"NIST's own report of Tower 7 stated that the possibility of it having collapsed from fire was highly unlikely. Will that do?"
-
Please tell me where to find the quote that says that. Thanks.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
explosives were heard by MANY people and on tape, THERMATE IS NOT LOUD !! Educate yourself stupid ignorant tube troll
Headshothorror4488 5 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
-
"explosives were heard by MANY people and on tape,"
-
ExploSIONS were heard, fully expected in building fires and people use the word all the time to describe things that arent explosives. Explosives were not at all caught on tape, there are zero detonations going off in all of the collapses when all this steel flinging is meant to be happening. Thermite isnt loud, but Gage apparently thinks it can hurl steel around, which is shown in the video.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&list=PLA3AD03D72BA9CAFD&index=1
Your claim that they have no published papers in respected journals is completely false.
They have several unchallenged, peer reviewed, published papers in journals such as "The Open Chemical Physics Journal", "The Open Civil Engineering Journal", "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics", "The Environmentalist", "Foreign Policy Journal"...
watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&list=PLA3AD03D72BA9CAFD&index=1
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"in journals such as "The Open Chemical Physics Journal", "The Open Civil Engineering Journal", "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics", "The Environmentalist", "Foreign Policy Journal"..."
-
The only respected journal here (some of these arent even real journals) is Journal of Engineering Mechanics, . What papers have truthers published in JEM?
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "some of these arent even real journals"
Which of these aren't real? I've read all of them myself. Need links?
As far as none being "respected", that seems to be your opinion. I'm not sure what that has to do with science...or the events of 9/11. If someone publishes a peer reviewed paper in a "non respected" journal, what is stopping you from refuting the paper?
Facts are facts, whether you respect the place which they are published is irrelevant to the debate.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
""The Open" ones are Bentham, they run real journals but they are not all well respected and its easy to find out where editors have quit in protest to terrible/dodgy quality standards, where scientists/engineers/doctors etc are upset when they are spammed to become editors of journals in subejcts they arent even qualified in. "Foreign Policy Journal" calls iself a journal but is just a conspiracy theorist news outlet. --(continued in next comment)
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
(continued.)
-
The Environmentalist is also not well respected and in order to publish you need to spent several thousand dollars. Even Benthan, also Open Access, only charges about $600. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a real journal, as I said last time. Please tell me what papers truthers have published in that journal?
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist And please remember why that paper was mentioned, because you initially stated they publish nothing, not because I claim it contains a smoking gun. We can get into that article if you'd like, but let's finish the discussion regarding this video, which is the reason i am here/the reason we are speaking.
I just want you to realize that sometimes you could be wrong, which you were in stating they publish nothing in respectable journals. We all make mistakes man.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"you initially stated they publish nothing"
-
No I didnt, I said they have never had anything in any legitmiate respected journals. You then referenced 4 journals, only 2 were science/engineering journals and only 1 was a respected legitmate journal for reasons I have touched on before. As I have asked 3 times now I want to know what paper you claim was published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
-
"We all make mistakes man."
-
Of course, but you have yet to show me any.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist So- back to the original argument(this video of yours) - Gage is initially talking about the period of time from plane impact to onset of collapse, you'd want the least amount of explosions to be heard while weakening the steel quietly with thermate.
Once collapse begins (when the beams are being flung) high explosives would be less audible, and probably required as you stated.
You simply took a quote out of context to make Gage contradict himself....how honest of you.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"you'd want the least amount of explosions to be heard while weakening the steel "
-
Yes, I get that. But then he claims super intense explosives hurled the steel hundreds of feet away. Why would it matter if the weakening was done quietly if you're going to have explosives hurling steel around later?
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist "Why would it matter if the weakening was done quietly if you're going to have explosives hurling steel around later?"
They tried to hide it as much as possible and failed. There was no way to not hurl steel in a 1200ft diameter, but they tried to hide as much of it as they could by using thermate to weaken the structure. You can see molten iron/steel flowing out of the building minutes up to the collapse.
You gotta admit. it makes sense.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"You gotta admit. it makes sense."
-
No it doesn't. The only reason you can't see a contradiction is because you too under the mistaken beleif that the sound we heard of the collapses is what we would expect from explosives hurling heavy steel around. Go watch some REAL demolitions, they are not powerful or intended to be powerful enough hurl heavy steel around and yet they are deafening and clearly picked up on video, then go watch other videos of high explosives set off.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist (continued) and the only point left is the "contradiction" Gage made, but if you understand my first point there, you should see that Gage is talking about two time periods here, the weakening leading up to the onset of collapse, and second, from the onset of collapse to completion of collapse (the time when high explosives would be necessary, the time when steel starts being flung 600ft horizontally).
You were comparing two quotes from two different "contexts" if you will
99Eternal 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist" "We all make mistakes man."
Of course, but you have yet to show me any" "
Denial? You said AE911TRUTH have never published anything in respected journals, you then yourself stated "JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant" and I gave you the name of the paper they published...
Why can't you simply admit you were wrong about that? It doesn't mean you are wrong about everything else man, I'm being fair to you, so please be honest with me.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"you then yourself stated "JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant" and I gave you the name of the paper they published..."
-
UUUH, excuse me but unless I missed it I have asked you 3 time (this time being the 4th) what truthers have published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics. So can you answer me please?
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist ""UUUH, excuse me but unless I missed it I have asked you 3 time (this time being the 4th) what truthers have published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics. So can you answer me please?""
"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse". I said that 4 hours ago............
You are a classic example of a wilfull ignorant who will not admit when he is incorrect. Sad that this discussion over 9/11 has become more about you being correct than what actually occurred on 9/11.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"You are a classic example of a wilfull ignorant who will not admit when he is incorrect."
-
Uh huh... well when you realise that the Bazant paper is not actually written by a truther like you claimed and doesnt support truthers in any way, it will be interesting to see how you react.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSkepticalIdealist "well when you realise that the Bazant paper is not actually written by a truther like you claimed and doesnt support truthers in any way, it will be interesting to see how you react"
Read it in it's entirely, you incredibly IGNORANT FOOL. READ THEIR RESPONSES. Jesus Christ man, do you need your hand held through everything?
99Eternal 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist You are talking about this paper, and my reaction to it, as if I've never seen it before, or as if i beleive it contains some sort of evidence, WHICH I STATED 4 FUCKING HOURS AGO, THAT IT DOESNT!!!
It is simply showing you that, unlike your previous statement, members of AE911TRUTH DO POST IN RESPECTED JOURNALS!
AS IF THE PLACE IN WHICH THEY PUBLISH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS THEY PRESENT.
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
Wow, thats amazing. You come here claiming that truthers have published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, you call me ignorant and incompetent for not knowing then you tell me the name of the paper. Except this paper was NOT written by a truther, it discusses the OPPOSITE of what truthers claim and truthers have long claimed the author is a shill (or something). AE911 do NOT post in respected journals, they have not published in JEM like you claimed. CAPS DOESNT HELP.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"It is simply showing you that, unlike your previous statement, members of AE911TRUTH DO POST IN RESPECTED JOURNALS!"!
-
Amazingly you still do not understand that the paper you referenced is NOT WRITTEN BY A TRUTHER and supports progressive collapse BY FIRE, which as far as I know is the complete opposite of what truthers claim. So... Bazant is not a truther, doesnt support truthers and doesnt believe what they do, so how is his paper show that truthers have stuff in JEM? o_O
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
"I gave you the name of the paper they published..."
-
And I just had to go back to this briefly. You just now claimed you never claimed that you said they published any papers in JEM, when that was the first thing you said to me, but later on you were still saying it. You even said that the Bazant paper WAS the paper they published in JEM (see quote above). I am happy to talk to you civilly you but please at least do me the courtesy of not denying your own words!
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist Wrong, I said they published peer reviewed papers in several open journals, which I listed. I did not specifically state that they published their own article at JEM, the reason JEM was mentioned is because they RESPONDED to /REFUTED a published article at JEM regarding natural collapse progression.
You ASSUMED. Instead of simply admiting that, you feel the need to split hairs and turn this into an argument...while evading the 9/11 points..
99Eternal 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-"I did not specifically state that they published their own article at JEM, "
-
DIRECT QUOTE:
"Denial? You said AE911TRUTH have never published anything in respected journals, you then yourself stated "JEM is a real journal and a paper published there would be significant" and I gave you the name of the paper they published..."
-
"the reason JEM was mentioned is because they RESPONDED"
-
So whats the relevance? letters to editors are not peer reviewed, as I said before.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
@99Eternal
-
(continued)
-
"I said they published peer reviewed papers in several open journals, which I listed"
-
Except, as I said, ONLY ONE is a science journal, the other is not respected or a science journal and the other is not a journal at all and just a fringe conspiracy theorist news website that simply has "journal" in the title. If you want to talk about the respectabilty of Bentham we can do that, if you want.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
There is evidence for explosives moron below. Hey kids, Believe thousand of EXPERTS or uneducated trolls on u-tube ?
Headshothorror4488 5 months ago
@Headshothorror4488
-
"Hey kids, Believe thousand of EXPERTS or uneducated trolls on u-tube ?"
-
Except your AE911 group are a tiny fringe irrelevant group of nobodies that no one in the professional world cares about, with zero papers in any respectable journals despite plenty of commentary about 911 and research published about it. Just in the US alone around 17,000 new engineers enter the workforce every year. But Gage also includes the whole world +.computer programmers and architects. Fail
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
No question or doubt that these buildings were blown up. There are way too many different strands of evidence all pointing to the same terrible conclusion: pre-planted explosives.
winston2015 5 months ago
@winston2015
-
"pre-planted explosives. "
-
Didn't you watch the video? Truthers believe in impossible explosives that cannot exist even in theory and exhibit no characteristics of an actual high explosive.
TheSkepticalIdealist 5 months ago
If Gage had some shame, he would put one of those cardboard boxes over his head.
911sausageman 8 months ago
I'm sure you mean well by making this video but there are videos here on YouTube that show thermite *under pressure* slicing through steel beams.
under pressure is the key. The iron spheres found in the dust prove beyond any doubt that thermite was used. I know it's uncomfortable but you simply can't run away from that fact.
vidmanx0 8 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
"slicing through steel beams."-
-
How does an incendiary PROPEL steel beams? You didn't read the annotations or listen to Gage properly, did you? Gage thinks you can fling steel beams around QUIETLY.
-
"he iron spheres found in the dust"-
-
Fly ash used in concrete have iron microspheres in them, why do you think the RJ Lee Group report said they were expected to be there?
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
@vidmanx0 It wasn't the smaller portion destroying the bigger portion (if you look at it like that, it is impossible).
It was the smaller portion crashing down on the exterior columns which caused many to be flung out to the side in elastic effect (rubber band like), and concrete floors were being pulverized almost one by one as the top portion of the building smashed through close to all of the concrete floors on it's way down. This makes sense, for some reason the AE911 guys can't grasp this.
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 That's where the acceleration during during collapse is key. If what you are describing took place, there would be a dramatic deceleration as the floors were pulverized. Instead, the acceleration during collapse is indistinguishable from freefall acceleration. This is simply not possible unless there is no resistance at all. Basic physics. Whenever you mention this to a physicist that hasn't studied 9/11, it certainly gets their attention.
vidmanx0 7 months ago
@vidmanx0 Totally disagree. The reaction when the weight above the weakened area collapses down at the weakened area then just continues downward in sequence. It actually makes perfect sense from a physics standpoint. Symmetrical building with no Interior Space columns. And the collapse was not at freefall acceleration, it was much slower. Just watch any video and you can see free falling debris 30-40 stories ahead of the collapse, and moving much faster.
atamalakolive 6 months ago
@atamalakolive No interior space columns?? Take another look at the building plans. The twin towers had many MASSIVE steel core columns.
I'm afraid you're wrong about the acceleration. David Chandler's videos here on YouTube show how you can disprove your claim using physics toolkit video analysis software.
vidmanx0 6 months ago
@vidmanx0 The Interior Space is the area between Core and Perimeter. It was spanned by floor trusses only. There were NO Interior Space columns from grade to roof., and the Interior Space is what collapsed first. These were very lightweight buildings (8 PCF as compared to say Empire State Building at 32 PCF). Tube in tube also enabled them to use 40$ less structural steel. They were symmetrical tube in tube construction, the only two of their kind in the world.
atamalakolive 6 months ago
@vidmanx0 Chanlder's video states that the building fell in 11 seconds, which is not true. Search for videos showing it was in NO way at free fall. They show the complete collapse, not the partial one Chandler shows. Also Chandler assumes that the entire body below acts as one, which is absurd, The entire building did not collapse at once, it was a sequence. And with more weight above as the collapse moved downward, any slight acceleration is no surprise. Force=Mass x Acceleration. Basic
atamalakolive 6 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
HEY GENIUS, Im still waiting for you to tell me how an incendiary can propel steel beams around. You just plan on ignoring all questions you don't like?
TheSkepticalIdealist 6 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist The speed of energy release of a thermite reaction is based on the surface area. The smaller the particles, the greater the surface area. That's why it is referred to as nano-thermite.
It sounds like you've done very little research on this matter.
vidmanx0 6 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
"The speed of energy release of a thermite reaction is based on the surface area. The smaller the particles, the greater the surface area. That's why it is referred to as nano-thermite."
-
And that translates into? If nano thermite is explosive and can propel steel around, then its loud, if its an incendiary, then its quiet but can't propel steel around. Seems like you still don't understand how explosives or sound works.
TheSkepticalIdealist 6 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist That's why some people suspect that both regular thermite was used for all of the pre-cuts and nano-thermite after the onset of collapse when people DID hear loud explosions. The bottom line is that vast quantities of thermite were found that shouldn't have been there. There's still a lot debunkers running around claiming that thermite can't slice steel which is not surprising given the kindergarten antics of the BBC and National Geographic in their thermite "experiments"
vidmanx0 6 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
"when people DID hear loud explosions."
-
Good god how can you not get this? There were no explosive detonations, we know this because we have various videos of the collapses, some practically beneath and you can't hear any, not even small shaoed charges, the sound of which would be nowhere near the amount required to FLING STEEL AROUND. If an explosive is flinging steel around it has to be loud, there were no explosions, therefore there were no explosives flinging steel around.
TheSkepticalIdealist 6 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist OK, now you're just being intellectually dishonest. The number of eyewitness accounts and video evidence for explosions is overwhelming. Just search YouTube for 9/11 explosions.
Your "killer" argument isn't.
vidmanx0 6 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
"The number of eyewitness accounts and video evidence for explosions is overwhelming."-
-
Explosions are fullt expected in building fires, what we dont have is any evidence of explosive detonations even on the level of severing columns with a shaped charge, let alone the amount of energy required to FLING STEEL HUNDREDS OF FEET. We have great video of the collapes that would have picked up these detonations, we dont hear any, therefore they didnt and couldn't have happened
TheSkepticalIdealist 6 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist Well, the videos show that steel was flung hundreds of feet at impossible velocity for gravitational collapse alone.
I don't understand why you keep saying that "We don't hear any". It seems like you've watched one video from ground level where the sound is reverberating all throughout the buildings into a muddy mess and made up your mind based on that.
vidmanx0 6 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
"I don't understand why you keep saying that "We don't hear any". "
-
Its quite simple. In a normal demolition a shaped charge is picked up miles away. Just go watch some demolitions, even small ones, all easily picked up on a recorder. Thats because explosives are VERY loud. On 911 all we have is a progressive rumble getting louder as it progresses towward the ground, yet you guys claim absurdly huge explosives went off capable of flinging huge steel around. Watch the damn video!
TheSkepticalIdealist 6 months ago
@vidmanx0 Well Richard Gage believes the Thermite was painted on. This isn't under pressure, and pokes a huge hole in your theory.
theBartone9119 7 months ago
@theBartone9119 That's a lie. The only mention of paint that I've heard is from retarded debunkers who claimed that the incredibly energetic and zinc-free red/gray chips were primer paint - even thought their chemical composition beared no resemblance to any paint ever created by man.
vidmanx0 7 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
"That's a lie. The only mention of paint that I've heard is from retarded debunkers"
-
No its not a lie though i wouldn't necessarily say Gage thinks it was painted on Steven Jones has definitely said various things about how nano thermite was used. Right now before you reply go watch the Jesse Ventura 911 episode of his ConspiracyTheory show. Before the nano thermite test with Van Romero Jones claims it was mixed with paint because he thinks that turns it into a "high explosive"
TheSkepticalIdealist 7 months ago
@vidmanx0
-
{continued...) And Im still waiting for you to tell me how an incendiary can propel steel beams around and why iron microspheres are strange seeing as there's plenty of other sources bescides thermite.
TheSkepticalIdealist 7 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist The speed of a thermite reaction is greatly dependent upon the surface area of the particles. At a nano scale, thermite *does* effectively become explosive. This has been talked about extensively and I'm really shocked that you're not aware of it.
The debunkers claim that iron micropheres are present in certain types of concrete. That may well be true but I've seen no evidence to back up that concrete can contain the types of spheres found in the WTC dust.
ComicPenius 7 months ago
@ComicPenius
-
"At a nano scale, thermite *does* effectively become explosive. This has been talked about extensively and I'm really shocked that you're not aware of it."
-
1. nano thermite is an incendiary, all applications involve its use as an incendiary and adding to actual explosives.
2. if nano thermite were explosiuve it still cant propel heavy steel around any more quietly than a regular explosive, because sound waves is the blast wave which is the energy.
TheSkepticalIdealist 7 months ago
@ComicPenius
- continued-
-
Why do you think the RJLee Group recognised the microspheres but said they were expected? Are they just idiots? Iron microspheres are common in fly ash used in concrete, yes. Why didn't Jones test WTC concrete as a control? But Jones has claimed plenty more elements indicat thermite that are entirely expected in the dust, even reports of molten metal and steel are TOTALLY unremarkable yet thats what his original thermite claims were based on in the first place.
TheSkepticalIdealist 7 months ago
you tube DOT com/watch?
v=
7nD7dbkkBIA
talonrox 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
Re: Your video: WOW some crazy asshat that doesn't understand what voluntary compliance means in reference to income tax or that Nick Rockefeller he claims told him all this is not related to THE Rockerfeller of the famous banking dynasty or at least so far removed its not even worth thinking about. Zeitgeist used the same clip for its failed predictions, now you try use it again.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
i'm still wondering when you're going to tell me what kinds of explosives are so intense they can blast heavy steel outwards 600 feet away from the WTC but not be picked up on camera and be so quiet they are drowned out by the collapsing building, For an "explosives expert" its amazing how little you've tried to expand on your claims.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist Last post as you are a thick headed moron who forgets what ever he wants to. *I* never said thermite was used to "fling steel", you did. Thermite was used for the precuts. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Second, I never said the FDNY wass involved, YOU DID, go back and re-read the posts.
It's easy to see how morons like you ARE SOOO WILLING to swallow anything that is fed to them. As I said, don't come crying to me when they want you implant an RFID chip in your ass!
talonrox 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
"*I* never said thermite was used to "fling steel", you did."-
-
Yes, you did. You claimed thermite somehow makes it quieter, the topic of the video has Gage claiming that explosives SO HUGELY INTENSE they blasted out steel from the core HUNDREDS of feet away from the building. Normal demolitions don't even TRY and do that, yet are eaisly picked on any video. We have no videos capturing even normal demolition charges let alone the MASSIVE ones Gage claims were used.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
"It's easy to see how morons like you ARE SOOO WILLING to swallow anything that is fed to them. "-
-
This is basic science, how sounds works, how explosives work. You don't understand either, apparently.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
"RFID chip in your ass!"-
-
You probabkly have no idea what RFID is capable of doing, just like you have no idea about any of this. Before RFID it was tatoo's, like Zeitgeist claiming that they would make microchips mandatory and of course that never happened, it also claimed it they would be able to track your every move. How and why would they log and sort that? Life is not a sci-fi movie. Your NWO always have these incomprehensibly pontless nonsensical plans.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist I addressed every point but, you have blinders on or you are a moron. Your choice. You think what ever you want. Make little difference to me but a word of advice, get a vasectomy! I'd hate to think of you reproducing.
talonrox 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
"I addressed every point"-
-
You know you didn't, all you did do is insist that explosives aren't that loud. Just answer me this, how does thermite help fling steel around?
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
Who do you want to listen to? Gage or Les Robertson (The man who designed the towers..? and is a VERY classy esteemed professional). Les Robertson was on a radio show talking about all this lunatic nonsense CD. He said.."There is no way one floor can bear the weight of 14 or more floors landing on it..no way!!"
And that is exactly what took place at the WTC. The exterior columns finally failed and 30 floors were set free to land on ONE floor below.
Good luck with that Mr Gage.
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
Don't come crying to me when they want you inject an RFID in your ass.!
talonrox 8 months ago
Sigh.... there is silence before the explosions... there was the deafening roar of the falling buildings that mics could not decern. Human ears can I already EXPLAINED this! And I never claimed to be an explosives expert, not sure where got that from. I just happen to have a genius IQ and know a lot of shit and use common sense. You obviously cannot grasp simple sequence logic so I am done. YOU WIN! THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!! RUN! RUN HIDE IN YOU HOUSES Just don't come crying to me when.....
talonrox 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
"there is silence before the explosions.."
-
And then a progressive increasing rumble turning into a roar, where are the "explosions"?
-
". there was the deafening roar of the falling buildings that mics could not decern"-
-
Total rubbish, no other demolition has trouble picking up explosions on camera. None. People like Gage claim explosives MASSIVELY more intense than any normal demolition.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
@TheSkepticalIdealist You are TOTALLY right on all of that. The CD thing is such a bunch of horseshit. The mathematics and sound analysis of this DOES NOT LIE and it can not be explained away. Show me the video tape of the towers burning..(Lots O those!!) then show me.. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.. COLLAPSE!! No one can. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Why? Because it never took place.
To claim this building is full of explosives and have PRO news cameras 800 feet away record NOTHING. Absurd
roquefortfiles 8 months ago
@talonrox
-"I just happen to have a genius IQ and know a lot of shit and use common sense"--
-
Oh I see, so you're just anothger lunatic. You';ve ignored every single point so far so you obviously don't want to discuss any of this. Why do truthers pretend to be an expert? Do they think I'm just going to accept whatever bullshit they claim because they say that? You claim to be an expert in explosives but have no idea how sound and explosives work. Good job.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
3) This isn't a conventional demolition where everyone is standing around for quiet for the thrill of the building's collapse. 4) The sound taking out the core columns would have been muffled by the outside walls 5) You can SEE the squibs on every tape there is of the falling towers. 6) The precut with thermite would not have required HUGE explosions (see point 2)
But what really gets me is why you think the FDNY has to be involved? It makes more sense to NOT involve them.
talonrox 8 months ago
@talonrox
-
"3) This isn't a conventional demolition where everyone is standing around for quiet for the thrill of the building's collapse."-
-
There's plenty of videos that would have caoptured these massive explosions had they been there. Look, normal demolitions are easily caught on camera, Just search for Landmark Implosion and you can see 3 different perspectives. Normal demoltioons charges are not power enough to fling steel around, yet are EASILY picked up.
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
"6) The precut with thermite would not have required HUGE explosions (see point 2)"-
-
How does thermite help propel steel around? Did you even watch this video?
-
"But what really gets me is why you think the FDNY has to be involved? It makes more sense to NOT involve them. "-
-
Maybe you can tell me why truthers never quote any of them about WTC7. We have dozens and dozens that have commentd about it, yet not a peep from truthers... Go on... guess...
TheSkepticalIdealist 8 months ago
I've explained that already. 1) You seem to think that they were quiet. Why do you think that? The FDNY on scene have spoken about hearing "pops" of explosions. 2) I've told you you will never hear explosive through the tremendous roar of the falling towers because condenser microphones are easily over loaded to distortion levels. It's VERY basic recording. What a simple example of this. Listen to the guy holding the camera speak while others are speaking away from it.
talonrox 8 months ago