Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: face23785

And show where there has ever been a top down demolition of a high rise office building.

Show where thermite has ever been used to bring down a high rise office building.

Show were a CD of a high rise office building over 50 floors has ever taken place.

a reply to: Informer1958

BS BS BS and you know

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: face23785

And show where there has ever been a top down demolition of a high rise office building.

Show where thermite has ever been used to bring down a high rise office building.

Show were a CD of a high rise office building over 50 floors has ever taken place.

Take a closer look at what I'm saying man, I'm not a "truther". I was telling him that even if you want to talk about buildings of the same design it wasn't just a fire that caused them to collapse. They don't compare apples to apples. They compare 9/11 to other highrise fires that don't involve an airliner smashing into the building and removing load-bearing columns. I'm aware of your points about the concrete and I agree with them, but you can only tackle one issue at a time with these folks.

a reply to: face23785

Sorry.

What I don't understand, why the conspiracists can ask millions of questions while ignoring questions proposed to them.

You can cite examples, references, different engineers, and load ratings, but everything is part of a lie to the conspiracists.

But everything said by Gauge, Jones, or Wood is gospel.

Then to except items on the merits of arguments makes you a government agent and labeled not questioning the government?

Again, sorry.

a reply to: neutronflux

Well that is exactly the problem with these types of issues. They talk themselves in circles. Any evidence that disproves their narrative, no matter how solid, is just written off as part of the lie and whoever is pushing that evidence has obviously been paid, threatened, or coerced. For instance I posted the pic a week or two ago showing that parts of the building were clearly falling faster than the rest of the building, which proves it wasn't a freefall collapse nor did the building fall in it's footprint. That removes controlled demo from the table, and they don't get it. It's why I've popped in and out of this thread rather than been responding to it day after day, there's only so much stupidity I can handle.

And don't sweat it.

a reply to: neutronflux


Conspiray believers are like that take the Apollo Moon landings the conspiracy side operates like this they only have to prove one thing is wrong with an image for it to be a hoax.

Yet the other side has to prove everything is correct for it not to have been, that is conspiracy logic for you., and the reson why you end up with many theories on the conspiracy side 9/11 being a prime example.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Conspiracy theories often fail the common sense test though. Like the moon landings. Really, we faked that and embarassed the Soviets by "beating" them to the moon, and they just took it on the chin instead of exposing it? If there was any evidence to even remotely suggest it was fake, the Soviets would've been all over that. You have to be a real gullible fool to think some douchebag on the internet can figure this out but the Soviet government had no idea.

a reply to: wmd_2008

What matters is how the buildings were destroyed.

They were NOT destroyed as the NIST report said they were destroyed. They were destroyed by controlled demolition.

THAT is the important part.

a reply to: face23785

I don't pretend it was only a fire--NIST does. If you had read even a summary of that report, you would already know that.

I understand it was far more than a fire, and I understand that while the airplane damage was significant, I also understand that it was not fatal, just as those who designed the towers have stated on the record. Yes, the towers were damaged, but the damage was not fatal, and such damage had been considered in the design.

It was a controlled demolition, and all the facts and evidence support that.

Only political courtiers and sycophants claim it was office fires.

a reply to: Salander

Yeah all the facts and evidence support that except the pieces of the building that fell away and completely outpaced the collapse. Show me one controlled demo where huge chunks of the building being demo'd fall away from the building and are 20 stories below the top of the collapse. Have you read the NIST report? It specifically cites the removed columns as one of the primary factors. It doesn't say it was JUST because of the fire. The buildings may well have withstood the fire if all the support columns were intact, but an impacting jetliner destroyed a bunch of them and when the remaining ones on that floor were heated in the fires they lost some of their strength and were no longer collectively strong enough to withstand the load. This is layman's physics. It's very simple to understand. Quit pretending you don't understand this. There are no fancy explanations needed. The removed columns plus the fire are more than enough to explain what happened to anyone with a functioning brain who doesn't have an agenda.

Read this. It contains FULL quotes from the engineers, not just snips taken out of context to twist around and forward your stupid theories:

Towers were designed to withstand impact from a smaller jet, traveling at a much lower speed, and the resulting fire wasn't even considered in the design

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: face23785

I don't pretend it was only a fire--NIST does. If you had read even a summary of that report, you would already know that.

I understand it was far more than a fire, and I understand that while the airplane damage was significant, I also understand that it was not fatal, just as those who designed the towers have stated on the record. Yes, the towers were damaged, but the damage was not fatal, and such damage had been considered in the design.

It was a controlled demolition, and all the facts and evidence support that.

Only political courtiers and sycophants claim it was office fires.

It was commercial airliners weakening the structure followed by fires. The damage considered in the design was for smaller aircraft moving at lower speed and was such that the towers would not fall from the impact. Fires change the equation.

It was not a controlled demolition, and all the facts and evidence support that. If you have evidence that it was demolition, you should bring it forward. Evidence, in this case means just that; feelings, intuition, and guesswork don't count as evidence.

Only conspiracists who have no understanding of the situation and their fanboys claim it was demolition.

a reply to: pteridine

The facts and evidence, circumstantial and direct, much of it suppressed by our government that "has nothing to hide", PROVE it was controlled demolition.

That's why Kevin Ryan and Van Romero were marginalized and pressured and fired from their jobs, or threatened with termination.

Only gullible and morbidly incurious persons still believe the NIST fairytale.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

The facts and evidence, circumstantial and direct, much of it suppressed by our government that "has nothing to hide", PROVE it was controlled demolition.

That's why Kevin Ryan and Van Romero were marginalized and pressured and fired from their jobs, or threatened with termination.

Only gullible and morbidly incurious persons still believe the NIST fairytale.

The facts prove nothing of the sort. Have you found some actual evidence or are you still locked into the A&E dream?

If you really need a conspiracy, consider the conspiracies of Government coverup of their own incompetence or the NY Port Authority coverup of substandard construction of the towers.

Only gullible persons still believe the demolition fairytale.

a reply to: Salander

I also understand that it was not fatal, just as those who designed the towers have stated on the record.

Can you quote where the designers have said the 9/11 incident didn't fatally damage the structure of the building?

Yes, the towers were damaged, but the damage was not fatal, and such damage had been considered in the design.

Oh I see what you are talking about that. since you act like you know what you are on about

Was it designed to withstand the same type of impact and force that was done by the flights which did strike the towers?

It was a controlled demolition, and all the facts and evidence support that.

So there have been other top down controlled demolitions done before, or as in 9/11 collapse from the point where the planes struck?

a reply to: Salander

Structural damage weakend steel due to fires POOR floor design.

The most important fact at the time they were designed THERMAL LOADINGS due to fire were not designed for assumptions were made and fire protection applied

WHY don't you comment on the floor design or is that outside your ability

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

The facts and evidence, circumstantial and direct, much of it suppressed by our government that "has nothing to hide", PROVE it was controlled demolition.

That's why Kevin Ryan and Van Romero were marginalized and pressured and fired from their jobs, or threatened with termination.

Only gullible and morbidly incurious persons still believe the NIST fairytale.

You and I clearly do not share the same illusions. You buy into the official fairy tale, I reject it.

Happy Holidays

Ditto, InhaleExhale

The facts prove nothing of the sort. Have you found some actual evidence or are you still locked into the A&E dream?

If you really need a conspiracy, consider the conspiracies of Government coverup of their own incompetence or the NY Port Authority coverup of substandard construction of the towers.

Only gullible persons still believe the demolition fairytale.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

The facts and evidence, circumstantial and direct, much of it suppressed by our government that "has nothing to hide", PROVE it was controlled demolition.

That's why Kevin Ryan and Van Romero were marginalized and pressured and fired from their jobs, or threatened with termination.

Only gullible and morbidly incurious persons still believe the NIST fairytale.

You and I clearly do not share the same illusions. You buy into the official fairy tale, I reject it.

Happy Holidays

Ditto, InhaleExhale

The facts prove nothing of the sort. Have you found some actual evidence or are you still locked into the A&E dream?

If you really need a conspiracy, consider the conspiracies of Government coverup of their own incompetence or the NY Port Authority coverup of substandard construction of the towers.

Only gullible persons still believe the demolition fairytale.

Hi Sal, I hope your holidays were/are enjoyable.

I have to say that the 'Truthers' have active imaginations that are unfettered by any sort of competence in science and engineering, which is why all things seem possible for them and inconsistencies with their beliefs are ignored. Couple that with addictions to conspiracies and group think reinforcement and it does attract those willing to take advantage of their lack of knowledge; enter A&E, Gage, Jones, et al.

a reply to: DimensionalChange03

I live within a mile of Langley AFB the 1st fighter squadron flew out of here that morning.
They go out every day at 5:00AM in waves. After the towers were hit by the airliners the traffic in and out was quadrupled what was normal. I pay attention when I hear the jets. They got back pretty damn quick if they were over Canada. But based on the timing most were still on the flightline just like any other morning.
Ear witness.

ATC/FAA/NORAD tapes from 9/11

Pretty interesting listen to anyone interested in truth. There's also a documentary that streamlines it a little here. The fact of the matter is that the procedures weren't designed for something like this, there was a lot of confusion, and it takes time to relay information through 3 or 4 different parties to get some jets scrambled, much less vector them to a specific target amongst thousands of flights in the air. You can hear several examples of info changing from one person to the next (telephone game style). Even today with all the changes they've made it would be difficult to stop such an attack once the hijackers have control of the planes. The movies give your average Joe overconfidence in how quickly and effectively our military can deal with crises.