Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: turbonium1

How many times must three or four people explain this to you. Again and again.

One, the collapse time for the floor system and the separate collapse time for the vertical columns was gathered from analyzing collapse video. Large sections of vertical columns stood for several seconds after the collapse of the floors.

Two, Each floor of the towers connected to the vertical columns with brackets, cleats, flanges... whatever you want to call them. Not welded I-beams running perpendicular to the vertical columns. You need to read this thread: Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts, www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: turbonium1

You never defined uniform collapse by the way.

There reason there was no resistance from the vertical columns? Once the upper portion of each tower Collapsed into the static floor system below, it didn’t knock over vertical columns. The falling mass fell through the path of least resistance. Stripping floor connections from the vertical columns. The falling mass fell around and between the vertical columns. Not through the vertical columns. Over simplified, But the vertical columns probably became more like bumpers in relation to the falling mass.

a reply to: turbonium1

WTC Collapses - Cores Visible
the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com...

9/11 Footage shows core of both towers standing; Debunks Basement BombsTheory
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Salander
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.

If not there, where did UA93 crash?

a reply to: pteridine

I asked that question pages ago, and I ask that question to anyone who says no plane crashed at Shanksville or the Pentagon.

You'll never get an answer.

I guess 16 years isn't enough time.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: pteridine

I asked that question pages ago, and I ask that question to anyone who says no plane crashed at Shanksville or the Pentagon.

You'll never get an answer.

I guess 16 years isn't enough time.

I saw your post and thought it worthwhile to ask it again. The folks who deny reality are either so desiring of a conspiracy that they blindly reject any evidence to the contrary or they are merely trolls who will always stir the pot. I haven't decided which Salander is yet.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Which eye witness?

Having seen it all on TV on the day it happened, and numerous other times, I'm an eye witness. There was no crashed airliner there that day. Anybody and everybody there agreed, and all photographic and video evidence corroborated that simple fact. So does the ACARS data.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
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.

If not there, where did UA93 crash?

I don't know that it did crash. How do you know that it did?

Another small matter which I've read about but cannot remember the specifics at this time is the matter of de-registration of the 4 aircraft involved that day from the FAA registry. I remember only that the dates are very odd regarding that process.

a reply to: Salander

There is a lot of that going on. A TWA Constellation that crashed in the 50s finally had the registration canceled in 2016. You can find a lot of examples of that happening, so it's not even close to a smoking gun.

Status: Final
Date: Tuesday 24 November 1959
Time: 05:35
Type: Silhouette image of generic CONI model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
Lockheed L-1049H Super Constellation
Operator: Trans World Airlines - TWA
Registration: N102R
C/n / msn: 4824
First flight: 1957
Engines: 4 Wright R-3350 (988TC18EA3)
Crew: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3
Ground casualties: Fatalities: 8
Airplane damage: Destroyed
Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair)

aviation-safety.net...

Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 4824 Certificate Issue Date None
Manufacturer Name LOCKHEED Mode S Code (base 8 / oct) 50006631
Model 1049-54 Mode S Code (base 16 / hex) A00D99
Year Manufacturer 1957 Cancel Date 09/09/2016
Reason for Cancellation Expiration Export To None
Type Registration Corporation

Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration
Name CAL EASTERN AVN INC
Street 1744 G ST NW
City WASHINGTON
State DIST. OF COL. Zip Code 00000
County DIST OF COLUMBIA
Country UNITED STATES

Deregistered Airworthiness
Engine Manufacturer WRIGHT Classification Unknown
Engine Model 67038 Category None
A/W Date None

registry.faa.gov...

a reply to: Zaphod58


Did not mean to say it was a smoking gun. However it is very much just another straw in the very large haystack of unusual events that directly or indirectly work against the official story.

For anybody who has seen NTSB reports over the years, the NTSB reports regarding those 4 aircraft were another highly irregular straw in the haystack. Indeed, all these highly irregular events contribute to the preponderance of the evidence that works against the official story.

a reply to: Salander

No, it's not a straw at all. It's one of the most common things that happens with the FAA. See my edit above about N102R. Crashed November 24, 1959. The registration expired and was cancelled September 9, 2016.

I guarantee that I can find others too. In fact, after Southern Air Transport shut down, all their DC-8 aircraft were transferred to a company in Florida that parts out aircraft. Southern Air Transport shut down in 1998. AeroTurbine/AirCap canceled their registration eight years later, when they canceled the registration of 43 of the 44 aircraft they owned. All the aircraft had been dismantled and destroyed, but all had valid registrations until May of 2006.

Canceling registrations years later is not a sign of anything but the FAA not keeping their database up to date.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm not disagreeing with your point regarding slow de-registration activity by the FAA. I'm sure you're right, and I've seen the bureaucratic inertia first hand from the FAA. But if you're suggesting that any and all de-registrations take years, I would disagree. I have not studied that, and it's beside the point.

The point is that in the case of 911, the preponderance of ALL facts and evidence work against the official story. No airplanes where there were supposed to be airplanes, wrong airplanes at WTC. Forged FDR data and on and on through the night, all night long.

Impossible collapses, heavy censorship of FEMA photos etc etc. SSDI inconsistencies, radiation sicknesses.

a reply to: Salander

No, not all take years, but you also can't point to the fact that the four aircraft didn't have their registration canceled until several years later and say that it's evidence of anything. Not all of them take years, but at the same time, it's such a common occurrence that it can't be used as evidence for anything but a slow process.

Sometimes, it's simply a matter of the owning corporation waiting and canceling multiple registrations at one time. Other times its just a matter of paperwork.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Preponderance of the evidence sir, preponderance of the evidence.

Vigilant Guardian, forged FDR data, highly irregular NTSB reports, radiation sickness, by-products of nuclear fission, horribly toxic air and lies by EPA head.

Like the Energizer Bunny, it don't stop.....

a reply to: Salander

And not all of the "preponderance of evidence" is actual evidence. Such as the registration. You, and others say it's evidence of something being hidden, but it can be proven that the same thing happens all the time.

The same with some of the other evidence as well.

As long as you never take the time to question the intentionally vague government conspiracy theory, and keep referring to the preponderance of things you still haven't figured out, of course it remains overwhelming.

You know, like where those flights went and how the wreckage got there (for starters).

a reply to: Salander

radiation sickness, by-products of nuclear fission

Still haven't given up on this Gruber despite multiple beatdowns on the subject ......

What radiation sickness you talking about ??

Many people at the scene experienced lung problems from breathing toxic dust in the air

Fission byproducts?

The old barium/Strontium found in dust - despite fact that barium is used to coat electrodes in florescent light tubes
and strontium is found in glass for CRT's and TV screen to cut XRAY emissions

Maybe should take his advice

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: blackaspirin

All from a individual that cannot even back his claims by providing actual quotes, or cite truth movement evidence. The truth movement has been exposedas a fraud and debunked. You can point to actual video, eyewitness accounts, and cite evidence, all backed by science.

All Salander can do is make vague references to items known to be debunked, cite dead philosophers, and post preponderance.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Which eye witness?

Having seen it all on TV on the day it happened, and numerous other times, I'm an eye witness. There was no crashed airliner there that day. Anybody and everybody there agreed, and all photographic and video evidence corroborated that simple fact. So does the ACARS data.

You’re not an eyewitness.

Don’t be a troll and act like you don’t know which eyewitness I’m talking about.

You know.

You should be banned permanently for trolling.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

And not all of the "preponderance of evidence" is actual evidence. Such as the registration. You, and others say it's evidence of something being hidden, but it can be proven that the same thing happens all the time.

The same with some of the other evidence as well.

It's funny how Salander goes on about the preponderance of evidence whilst ignoring the preponderance of evidence