Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


My analysis is probably too subtle and nuanced for you.

You are only fooling yourself. One, creating a credible theory and providing proof to supersede the fact the towers collapse from inward bowing leading to buckling has nothing to do with nauance.

In fact, you have never outlined a theory to why and how inward bowing and buckling occurred as seen in this link.
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

If you mean by nuance as no logical and structure arguments, yes you are filled to the eyeballs with nuance.

Otherwise, your just intellectually dishonest, hide from debate, use false arguments, use misquotes, quotes out of context, flip flop from thread to thread, and make claims about statements you cannot provide.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent


It's not drying up at all. The official story has been disproved at every turn.

Ok, list ten items of the offical narrative that are false and supporting evidence that they are false.

Because Richard Gage said so doesn’t count.

Might what to check on AE 9/11 Truth donations, Facebook likes, website daily hits over time, and the failure of their petition drives. I think they have lost some of the persons they claim on the list of “professionals” too.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

What is predictable sir, is that you are completely unable to prove that 95% of the plane was recovered.


Mere repetition of a claim does not prove it. Maybe for you it does, but not for me.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale

What is predictable sir, is that you are completely unable to prove that 95% of the plane was recovered.


Mere repetition of a claim does not prove it. Maybe for you it does, but not for me.

And you are unable to prove that it wasn't. Mere repetition of a claim does not prove it. As it stands, you have not shown that any of your claims has any supporting evidence.

Your overwhelming desire for a conspiracy blinds you to reality and forces you to reject all that does fit into the bubble of your alternate universe.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: blackaspirin


Those photos are extremely well known and 15 years old. What's your point?

I've seen this scenario play out so many times over the years, with people claiming things like 'no wreckage at the Pentagon' or 'no wreckage at Shanksville' - the first step is to make sure they've actually seen photos of the wreckage.

You may now explain why photos of the wreckage don't count. We can do the same with the Pentagon. You will get your chance to explain the following - how that wreckage got there, and where Flights 93 and 77 went, along with all of the passengers.

The "Official Story" explains these things. Denying the official story does not explain these things. It has been 16 years, so surely you have a plausible working theory by now. What happened to those flights, and how did that wreckage get there?

a reply to: blackaspirin

And the individual has never created a argument to discredit the 100 plus persons that attest to a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon, nor any argument to discredit the numerous accounts of the persons that worked the flight 93 recovery other than it’s all a lie. The testimonies at trial, backed by radar data, backed by recovered remains and personal items, backed by DNA testing, backed by coroner issued death certificates, backed by the release of remains to families, backed by burials, backed by burnt trees, backed by large field of wreckage, backed by the recovery of engines, backed by the recovery of flight data recorders, backed by wreckage recovered as deep as 40 feet deep.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


Mere repetition of a claim does not prove it.

And similarly, denial of evidence does not make it disappear.

You doggedly hang your hat on Miller’s statement.

But also doggedly refuse to reconcile his statement with the eyewitness statement that I’ve provided to you weeks ago where he SAW the plane plow into the ground and SAW debris spray into the air.

I ask you now to explain how you incorporate these opposing statements.

How do you do that? Ignore and/or deny the eyewitness?

911 was meant to be absurd. Why?

Anything we once knew, had not been known, until now...or later....or anytime..


Apparently, supporting the structure won't support anything. Even though many supports remain intact, none are capable of any support now, for some mysterious reason)s)....


Sorry that no proof of this exists. And sorry that it can't be replicated in any way, too...


Explain how a structure is capable of bearing loads for decades, fail all at once, in a perfectly convenient sequence, floor by floor, evenly, just milliseconds apart?


You see any distinct features of a CD?

How do you distinguish a totally random, structural failure, from a carefully planned, implemented sort of structural failure?

The distinction in symmetry, obviously...

I've never seen a random failure be uniform, floor by floor, lose support, in precise sequence, simply because these are features of a controlled demolition.Not at random, in any way.

Random, acting randomly, all causes random damage, and random failure.Only a random collapse, therefore

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You have never posted video or linked to video that showed evidence of demolitions CD.

Videos showing inward bowing and buckling with no proof of explosions.

9/11: North Tower Collapse (Etienne Sauret)
m.youtube.com...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

WTC2 Collapse Initiation Sound - Version #1 (B. Levy)
m.youtube.com...

The truth movement started on the belief the towers were brought down by CD is based on lies. The original cry was collapse at free fall speed. The towers fell through the path of greatest resistance. Again the floor system fell at 2/3rds the rate of free fall. The core columns at 40 percent the rate free fall. The path of greatest resistance was the core columns, which the core column system remained standing whole seconds after complete collapse of the floor systems. The truth movement is based on lies.

You want to post BS that floor system collapse is not scientific? When the load capacities of floors are based on material science, engineering best practices, and lessons from engineering accidents.

I have posted examples of buildings that have collapsed from overloadeding.

The Madrid Windsor had a complete steel structure failure because of fire above the 17th floor.

Who went in to rig the Plasco building? Why?

If WTC buildings and the Plasco buildings were rigged, how did the demolitions systems, demolitions wiring, and the detonators, survive the fires? How did the demolitions systems in the WTC tower survive jet impacts that cut fire water mains and elevator cables.

Please show where a hi rise building was ever brought down by top down explosives CD or by thermite.

You have posted NO PROOF of CD. While your basis in your belief and false statements have been debunked.

While your questions and concerns are clearly address with video and evidence. While you ignore questions directed at you, and fail to provide any proof.

You only have innuendo and rants based on false narratives.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are arguing a false narrative.

Please define uniform. There was noting uniform about the collapse of the towers. Three different mechanisms at play.

One) Inward bowing and buckling that caused the whole upper portion of the Towers to smash into the static portions below.

Two) The total collapse of the floor system stripped away from the vertical columns.

Three) Then the toppling of long sections of vertical columns which remained standing after the complete collapse of the floor system.

You....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This was a complete, uniform, structural highrise collapse, caused by only random fires and/or random structural damage, which occurred three times, on the very same day.

Note, Radom and uniform fires and heating causes greater strain and chance of failure from portions of the building thermally expanding and contracting at different rates.


The truth....

www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

debunked-wtc-towers-fell-in-their-own-footprints.t1226/

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: turbonium1

You need to stop arguing your manufactured truth of 9/11, and addressed what actually occurred.

a reply to: turbonium1

How is your random rant a rebuttal to any of this?

New to list of misconception. Uneven and random heating and cooling with no heat soak times causes the greatest chance of thermal expansion strain leading to component failures.

“Let's start again...

Your only stance was too much dust?
Floor connections cannot be overloaded?

You try to spin a false narrative that load capacities of floor connections are not understood and based on physical properties of material and best engineering practices through engineering failures.

You claim the towers cannot be repeated? While I can cite examples of building collapse from violating load capacities.

You ignore the Madrid Windsor and the steel structure collapsed from fire. The concrete supports were the only thing that stop a total building collapse.

You ignore there has never been a explosives implosion CD of a building over 50 floors.

Never has been a high rise CD by Thermite.

Never has been a top down explosive CD of high rise building.

You cannot explain how a sophisticated CD system requiring supposed floor to floor installation was secretly installed? How such a system survive jet impacts that cut elevator cables, cut fire water mains, and survived building wide fires.

The original interest in the towers was based on lies.

One, the floor system of the towers fell at 2/3rds the rate of free fall. The core columns at 40 percent free fall.

Two, large lengths of the core columns were left standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

Three, people still say the towers fell at the rate of free fall. The truth movement takes no action to correct this false perception.

The truth movement is based on the lies of:
The towers fell at the rate of free fall speed. The towers fell through the path of greatest resistance to create a symmetrical collapse.

The truth movement relies on people believing in false statements to survive.

And, again.........

Pre 9/11 studies showed the WTC fire insulation was insufficient.

The WTC design used less concrete beyond normal engineering practices to minimize costs.

The floor trusses were longer than common engineering practices with no supports along their lengths.

The jets hit, and damaged numerous columns beyond their ability to support load. The load of the building was transferred to the columns retaining their integrity.

The jet impacts knocked of fire protect insulation.

Steel looses 60 percent of its ability to resist load around 1000 degrees Celsius.

The fires burned.

The floor trusses in the areas of the jet impacts heated up. Tried to expand in length. The floor trusses boxed in by surviving columns could not expand in length. The floor trusses trying to expand and weaken by heat sagged/bowed down in the middle. Upon cooling, the floor trusses contracted, caused isolated areas of vertical columns buckling. Isolated in the context in areas relative to the jet impacts.

A video of the buckling can be seen here
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

The buckling lead to the collapse of the building above into the remaining building below. The load capacity of the floor connections were overloaded. The floor system of the towers were stripped away from the vertical columns.

a reply to: pteridine


Well there was a conspiracy, assuming I am allowed to use dictionary definitions here. The only question really is just who the conspirators were.

And it is your side claiming UA93 crashed there. That is your story, the story you defend. So far, you are unable to prove your claim/story.

I simply do not believe your story BECAUSE it cannot be proved. That may be too damn complex for you to grasp, but in the traditional rules of debate, if Party A makes a claim (UA93 crashed in that field), then Party A must be able to prove that.

I have no obligation to believe an unsubstantiated claim. The obligation rests with you and yours to prove your claim.

a reply to: MrBig2430


Very simple sir--I saw Miller's statement on that day, and I've seen his subsequent statement, and I've read his statement from 2012 explaining what happened in 2001.

At moment 1 he claimed he found no sign of a wrecked airliner, and at moment 2 he completely contradicted himself. So you tell me sir, in which moment was he speaking the truth.

At moment 3, years later, he explained how the feds asked him to be a team player, and how that led to his Moment 2 statement.

It's not rocket science, just ordinary human behavior.

93 did not crash in that field that day.

I would love to watch the court case in which the 'official attorneys' introduce photos of wreckage, testimony from those who held it in their hands, along with body parts, DNA matches, flight data, ad infinitum...

And you would tell the court that Miller said __________, and ask the court to dismiss all of the evidence that they just saw in favor of a misinterpreted sentence. You could even say "93 did not crash in the field that day", with all of the authority your voice could muster.

Please, please make this happen. TV is really boring right now. I would like to watch the shortest court case in history.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


Very simple sir--I saw Miller's statement on that day, and I've seen his subsequent statement, and I've read his statement from 2012 explaining what happened in 2001.

At moment 1 he claimed he found no sign of a wrecked airliner, and at moment 2 he completely contradicted himself. So you tell me sir, in which moment was he speaking the truth.

At moment 3, years later, he explained how the feds asked him to be a team player, and how that led to his Moment 2 statement.

It's not rocket science, just ordinary human behavior.

93 did not crash in that field that day.

Why do you ignore the eyewitness?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


Very simple sir--I saw Miller's statement on that day, and I've seen his subsequent statement, and I've read his statement from 2012 explaining what happened in 2001.

At moment 1 he claimed he found no sign of a wrecked airliner, and at moment 2 he completely contradicted himself. So you tell me sir, in which moment was he speaking the truth.

At moment 3, years later, he explained how the feds asked him to be a team player, and how that led to his Moment 2 statement.

It's not rocket science, just ordinary human behavior.

93 did not crash in that field that day.

Then produce and reference the actual quotes.

Every time you have produced Miller quotes, it has been out of context. The full context always shows you have put words in Miller’s mouth and push false narratives.

The original quotes of Miller, taken out of context to a news paper report, Miller said the wreckage in the crater looked dumb.

Please produce a quote from miller there was no wreckage.

Please produce a quote from miller there was no human remains.

Your false accounts are not even supported by truth movement propaganda in there is no reference Miller walked out of the crash site and said directly to the cameras no wreckage.

I know I suck at proof reading.

The original misquotes from Miller were based on Miller saying the wreckage looked dumped into the crater. Nothing about proclaiming no wreckage.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You are arguing a false narrative.

Please define uniform. There was noting uniform about the collapse of the towers. Three different mechanisms at play.

One) Inward bowing and buckling that caused the whole upper portion of the Towers to smash into the static portions below.

Two) The total collapse of the floor system stripped away from the vertical columns.

Three) Then the toppling of long sections of vertical columns which remained standing after the complete collapse of the floor system.

You....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This was a complete, uniform, structural highrise collapse, caused by only random fires and/or random structural damage, which occurred three times, on the very same day.

Note, Radom and uniform fires and heating causes greater strain and chance of failure from portions of the building thermally expanding and contracting at different rates.


The truth....

www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

debunked-wtc-towers-fell-in-their-own-footprints.t1226/

www.metabunk.org...

The random damage and random fire caused random failure, and random collapse, you believe?

And you think it is random by slivers of vertical supports that stood up after the collapse? Take a look at some CD's after the collapses...some pieces remain upright, after some CD's.

How do you know all of the vertical columns were slower to collapse, than the rest of the building? All of it is obscured by huge dust clouds, all the while, until the tower collapses down to the surface.


Your source thinks there was some support from the intact structure below....by the first claim that the vertical columns were slower, something not proven.

Your source finds it was about 40% of free-fall speed, while the rest was about 2/3 of free-fall speed....

No proof of it, but who cares?

Your source thinks 80,000 tons of intact structural steel support columns means resistance to the collapse...

By slowing down the collapse...to 40% free-fall speed...

How was the speed calculated, btw?

If 40% of free fall speed is 10 seconds of resistance offered by 80,000 tons of structural steel support columns, over 80 floors, or so..

The resistance would be about 0.125 seconds, per floor....

That means there was no resistance at all from the massive structural support columns.

The collapse speed of some large-scale CD's, or close to it.

That's because it was a CD.